Everyday Life and Resistance Practices in F-Type Prisons of Turkey

EVERYDAY LIFE AND RESISTANCE PRACTICES IN F-TYPE PRISONS OF TURKEY

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

SİBEL BEKİROĞLU

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

JULY 2016

Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences

______

Prof. Dr. Meliha ALTUNIŞIK Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

______

Prof. Dr. Sibel KALAYCIOĞLU Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

______

Assist. Prof. Dr. Çağatay TOPAL Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan YILDIRIM (METU, SOC) ______

Assist. Prof. Dr. Çağatay TOPAL (METU, SOC) ______

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Kemal COŞKUN (Ankara Uni, SOC) ______

PLAGIARISM

I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last Name: Sibel Bekiroğlu

Signature :

iii

ABSTRACT

EVERYDAY LIFE AND RESISTANCE PRACTICES IN F-TYPE PRISONS OF TURKEY

Bekiroğlu, Sibel M.S., Department of Sociology Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Çağatay Topal

July 2016, 213 pages

This study undertakes the analysis of everyday lives of the political prisoners in F- type prisons in reliance of the concept of “tactic” of Michel de Certeau. Based on isolation model, F-type prisons are high security prisons that were started to be used after 2000s. The establishment of F-type prisons is one of the important points in the recent political history of Turkey, which can be entitled as a direct intervention to the everyday lives of political prisoners. Based on the interviews and correspondence, this study discusses how political prisoners have organized their everyday lives convenient to this new isolation model and developed coping mechanisms for the problems arose in those incarceration places. The coping mechanisms of the prisoners are scrutinized according to four major features of the concept of tactic which are belonging to the place of other, invisibility, trickery and creativity. The thesis claims that these tactical practices are the resistance practices and the survival politics of the prisoners against the power which has a desire to cover everything.

Key words: Everyday Life, Resistance, Tactics, F-type Prisons, Political Prisoners.

ÖZ

TÜRKİYE’NİN F-TİPİ HAPİSHANELERİNDE GÜNDELİK HAYAT VE DİRENİŞ PRATİKLERİ

Bekiroğlu, Sibel Yüksek Lisans, Sosyoloji Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Çağatay Topal

Temmuz 2016, 213 sayfa

Bu çalışma F-tipi hapishanelerdeki siyasi tutsakların gündelik hayatını Michel de Certeau’nun taktik kavramını esas alarak analiz eder. Tecrit modeli üzerine kurulu F-tipi hapishaneler yüksek güvenlikli hapishaneler olup 2000li yıllardan sonra kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. F-tipi hapishanelerin açılması siyasi tutsakların gündelik hayatlarına doğrudan bir müdahale olarak adlandırılabilecek Türkiye’nin yakın siyasi tarihinde önemli noktalardan biridir. Mülakat ve yazışmalara dayanan bu çalışma siyasi tutsakların F-tipi tecrit modeline uygun olarak gündelik yaşamlarını nasıl örgütlediklerini ve bu kapatılma mekânlarında ortaya çıkan problemlere karşı ne tür baş etme mekanizmaları geliştirdiklerini tartışır. Bahsi geçen baş etme mekanizmaları taktik kavramının dört temel özelliğine göre incelenmiştir. Bu özellikler, başkasının mekânına ait olma, görünmezlik, kurnazlık ve yaratıcılıktır. Bu tez siyasi tutsakların taktiksel pratiklerinin, her şeyi kapsama arzusunda olan iktidara karşı geliştirdikleri bir direniş pratiği ve hayatta kalma politikası olduğunu iddia eder.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Gündelik Hayat, direniş, taktikler, F-tipi hapishaneler, siyasi tutsaklar.

“… Ah , I wish you knew how much I love Köroğlu, karayılan, Meçhul asker, then Pir Sultan and Bedrettin. And many unwritten loves. And I wish you knew how much they loved me. I wish you knew the one, who fought in Urfa and how he would laugh to the death from minarets, from barricades from cypress trees. I really want you to know do you hear? Don’t feel so forlorn, Thus lamentable, such pitiful.. wherever you are, inside or outside, in classrooms, in desks be defiant. spit on the face of the hangman, on the face of the opportunist, the instigative, the treacherous.. resist with books. resist with work. with nails, with teeth, with hope, with love, with dreams resist don’t disgrace me. See, how I can be revived, with your young and honest hands. I have girls and boys in the future Any one of them is an indispensable piece of the world Any one of them is the blossom of my thousand years of longing From your eyes I kiss you from your eyes You are my only hope. Do you understand?”  Ahmet Arif

 from a poem called “Anadolu” (Anatolia). vi

DEDICATION

To the ones who resist and do not give up “inside and outside, in classrooms, in desks” against the cruelty of the oppressors…

To the “boys and girls” who wanted to bring peace to this land on bloody 10th October…

To Mecit with whom I promise to see good days…

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis advisor Asst. Prof. Dr. Çağatay Topal, for his giving me the chance for the investigation of such an important issue in Turkey and his valuable comments and advices. I further need to express my gratitude to my dear jury members Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Kemal Coşkun and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erdoğan Yıldırım for their critical comments and valuable contributions to my work.

As doubtlessly, friends made up an important part of the writing period of the thesis. My dear friends Sinem Erdal, Cemile Güngör Şen, Gül Öztürk, Cansu Okan, Didem Şalgam, Elif Yağmur Karagöl Demir, Dilek Çakır and Göknil Torun made me feel that they were always there whenever I need. If not for them, this process would definitely be unbearable, like every other process and moments would.

I owe special thanks to my beloved friend Cemil Adıyaman without whom this study would not possible. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to him for his invaluable patience and encouragements and for everything that he has provided me.

I am grateful to my dear friend Hüsnü Yıldız for his friendship and support. Although he was very busy, he did not refuse my challenging demands and has encouraged me whenever I had difficulties. My thanks are as well to Burcu Sarı, Merk Kükrer and Ulaş Nacar for their encouragement and support during the writing period of the thesis.

I would like to thank to loving Deniz, Resmiye, Muhabbet, Ruken, Zeynep, Didem, Gülay, Aydın, Murat, Halit, Halil and Yılmaz for their valuable support and believing during the writing process. I feel their love and support in every moment in this period of writing. They are my heroes.

viii

I deeply thank to Aysun Telek, Berker Telek and their families for their support in my hard times and their valuable encouragement. I learnt a lot from them.

I am deeply indebted to my parents, Seher Bekiroğlu and Hüseyin Bekiroğlu for their extraordinary patience and faith during the thesis writing process and also their believing and support in every moment in my life. I would also like to thank Ahmet Bekiroğlu and Açelya Bekiroğlu for their love and invaluable moral supports in this period.

I appreciate TOHAV, ÖHD, HHB, TUAD, TAYAD, TUHAD-FED, İHD, CİSST for their kind attention to my thesis and their participation to my research.

I would also like to thank my respondents which take part in my field. Their contributions had been very valuable for my study.

Lastly, I cannot find sufficient words to express my gratitude to beloved Mecit Odlukaya who believed in this study and encouraged me all the time from the first days of the idea. Although I was a trouble sometimes, he handled my unbearable times without any single complaint. Without him, this study would not be possible.

This work is supported by the Scientific Research Project Fund of Middle East Technical University under the project number BAP-07-03-2015-018.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM ...... iii ABSTRACT ...... iv ÖZ ...... v DEDICATION ...... vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... viiix CHAPTER-I 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Statement of the Research Problem and Research Question...... 1 1.2. Theoretical Framework ...... 6 1.3. Significance of the Research ...... 10 1.4. Background of the Research ...... 11 1.5. Research Design ...... 13 1.6. Thesis Plan ...... 16 CHAPTER-II 2. LITERATURE ...... 17 2.1. Literature on Everyday Resistance ...... 20 2.3. Prison Literature and Studies on Imprisonment ...... 32 CHAPTER-III 3. THE CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH ...... 40 3.1. Logic of the Prison ...... 40 3.2. Prison Systems and Prison Generations ...... 45 3.3. Prisons in Turkey ...... 49 3.3.1. Prisons in Numbers ...... 49 3.3.2. Periodization of Prison History of Turkey ...... 51 3.3.2.1. Chaotic Period ...... 54 3.3.2.2. Period of Order ...... 61

3.3.2.3. Period of Isolation ...... 68 3.4. Field ...... 72 3.4.1. “Doing Prison Research” ...... 82 CHAPTER-IV 4. EVERYDAY LIFE AND RESISTANCE ...... 86 4.2. Tactics in F-type Prisons ...... 100 4.2.1. Reading ...... 100 4.2.2. Exercise ...... 108 4.2.3. Drawing / Painting ...... 114 4.2.4. Communication ...... 117 4.2.4.1. Corresponding ...... 119 4.2.4.2. Prison Ball ...... 122 4.2.4.3. Manhole ...... 124 4.2.4.4. Holes ...... 127 4.2.5. Doing Foods and Beverages ...... 129 4.2.6. Handcrafts ...... 134 CHAPTER-V 5. CONCLUSION ...... 142 5.1. Research Gaps and Further Research Avenues ...... 146 REFERENCES ...... 149 APPENDICIES APPENDIX-1 Interview Questions ...... 161 APPENDIX-2 Prison Systems ...... 181 APPENDIX-3 Prison Statistics of European Countries ...... 184 APPENDIX-4 Prison Chronology of Turkey ...... 186 APPENDIX-5 F-type Prison Plan ...... 187 APPENDIX-6 Single Cell ...... 188 APPENDIX-7 Pysical Condititons of the Single Cells ...... 189 APPENDIX-8 Triple Cell ...... 192 APPENDIX-9 An Ordinary Day of Political Prisoners ...... 193 APPENDIX-10 Interviewee Profiles ...... 194

APPENDIX-11 Prison Ball ...... 195 APPENDIX-12 A Possible Route of Prison Ball ...... 197 APPENDIX-13 Wallet ...... 198 APPENDIX-14 Handmade Knife ...... 199 APPENDIX-15 Turkish Summary ...... 200 APPENDIX-16 Tez Fotokopisi İzin Formu ...... 213

xii

CHAPTER I

1. INTRODUCTION

Disciplinary power identifies all kinds of goods and objects, with which the body has to establish relationship, on behalf of itself and force the body to adopt these descriptions. For that reason, the relationship between the body and the object is imposed according to demand of the power. When the body establish relationship with object or good, this relationship results in the internalization and naturalization of the disciplinary power1. (Ali Yılmaz, 2013) It is all the more urgent to discover how an entire society resists being reduced to it, what popular procedures (also "miniscule" and quotidian) manipulate the mechanisms of discipline and conform to them only in order to evade them, and finally, what "ways of operating" form the counterpart, on the consumer's (or "dominee's"?) side, of the mute processes that organize the establishment of socioeconomic order. (Michel de Certeau, 1984)

1.1. Statement of the Research Problem and Research Question This study is an attempt to shed light on the everyday life and tactical resistance practices of the political prisoners in F-types2. There are three points which this study must be clear on: F-type prisons, everyday life and tactical resistance.

Prisons are the places where system’s “leftovers” are placed. Underlying strategy of them is the construction of the desired via “refused”. The desired human profile is no longer generated through creating directly but by “sorting out” the “ragged”, the “ill- advised”, the “fragmented”. In that sense, prisons are generally understood and

 All the translations of the quotes in the footnotes belong to me.

1 “Disipliner iktidar, bedenin ilişki kurmak zorunda olduğu her türlü eşya ve nesneyle ilişkisini kendi lehine tanımlar ve onu bu yönde uygulamaya zorlar. Bu nedenle beden ile eşya arasındaki ilişki, iktidarın istediği biçimde empoze edilir. Beden nesneyi veya eşyayı kullandığında onunla kurduğu ilişki disipliner iktidarın içselleşmesini ve benimsenmesini sağlar.”

2 F-type is the abbreviation for F-type prisons. 1 discussed within the framework of power relations with its institutional base. Especially F-type prisons which are officially called as F-type High Security Closed Institutions for the Execution of Sentences are generally considered with these aspects and their revealed panoptic appearance. Both because of this notoriety and of their locations3, F-type prisons are formed as the figures of fear. Plus, little knowledge on those incarceration places brightens up this figure. This situation results in the ignorance of the people who have to live there for years and even till the end of their lives. This is the other side of the coin: the side of everyday life and resistance. In this respect, this study constitutes its framework through a shift from what Ali Yılmaz says in the epigraph to the understanding of de Certeau.

In that sense, studying such an issue seeks to “make the point that if the resistance is possible even in the most unfavorable and unequal of circumstances, then it should be possible anywhere” (Haslam & Reicher, 2012: 155). Although this idea is a big claim - frame of this claim cannot be drawn – it is crucial in terms of indicating the rationale of the study. However, we should be aware of that apprehending such a dynamic and mechanism does not mean that they develop everywhere in the same form. Or we cannot ignore that being exposed to such an unjust and unequal conditions itself can be the reason of this relationship with power and also the resistance.

As aforementioned, it will be a study of “prisons of Turkey” not “prisons in Turkey”. Because it is the problem of the whole mechanism which Turkey is also responsible. Due to these ethical matters and some other judicial problems there are few studies on the issue of prisons.

The purpose of this study is derived mainly from this gap in the prison researches, especially F-types in Turkey and studies on resistance in general. To fill this gap, this study will be based on an empirical research which deals with the daily life experiences within those prisons. I will mainly seek to understand how these

3 All F-type prisons are located out of the urban settlement. 2 everyday life experiences bear a creative aspect which undermines the space of power.

The resistance side of the thesis can be expanded with a question as such: how resistance is possible within such places? Instead of looking at how the oppressor use force over the subordinated ones, we will deal with exactly opposite question: how the people challenge their oppressors? It is important to write “an alternative history of resistance that can be found in even the most oppressive and tyrannical of circumstances” (Haslam & Reicher, 2012: 155). This is the reason that lies behind why the prisons were selected as the object of analysis. The idea is basically that “if we can see the any pattern of resistance in such places where the purpose is to total “training” of the individuals and total elimination of the resistance, then we can see it everywhere like a feature of the existence. In other words, the issue of resistance substantially is an ontological matter; not a result of existence but existence itself. In that sense, dealing with the “other”, ignored side of the power relations, with the part of “resistance” would mean more than a methodological selection. Here I want to refer what Rakel Dink said in the funeral of Hrant Dink. She, in her “letter to the loved one”, stated:

Whatever would be the age of the murderers, 17 or 27, I know that they were born babies once. Without questioning the darkness that created murderers from those babies, there's nothing to do, my brothers and sisters4.

This issue also is uttered by Fanon who wants to understand ‘how a baby turns into a murderer’. Those are maybe the most real questions if one lived such catastrophic moments. But I want to look at the issue from another point of view here and ask “how can a baby turn into a Hrant Dink?” I really wonder this transformation because I think this is the question that will create new Hrants; this question will “open up new opportunities” and form a “livable, bearable” world. The vitality of the issue comes from here. Contrary to Wilhelm Reich’s problematique, maybe we can say that “what has to be explained is how the man who is hungry can steal or how the man who is exploited can strike rather than trying to search for why the majority of

4 Retrieved from: “http://bianet.org/biamag/politics/90622-rakel-dinks-letter-to-the-loved-one” 3 those who are hungry don’t steal and why the majority of those who are exploited don’t strike”5. Michel de Certeau draws attention to those, in Reich’s illustration, who steal in spite of this huge power mechanism which is everywhere. He states as paraphrased in the epigraph that:

If it is true that the grid of “discipline” is everywhere becoming clearer and more extensive, it is all the more urgent to discover how an entire society resists being reduced to it, what popular procedures (also “miniscule” and quotidian) manipulate the mechanisms of discipline and conform to them only in order to evade them, and finally, what “ways of operating” form the counterpart, on the consumer’s (or “dominess’s”?) side, of the mute processes that organize the establishment of socioeconomic order. (de Certeau, 1984: 13)

In a word as Butler clearly enunciated that the problem is to understand that “how to take an oppositional relation to power that is, admittedly, implicated in the very power one opposes” (Butler, 1997: 17).

In one sense, the question asked above carries its own answer within itself. As learnt from Hegel, it is this negation, “saying no”, what makes an individual a subject. This issue of “negativity”, “saying no”, can be viewed from two main angles, which, in a sense, serve to show the importance of taking the prison as the major focus: negativity of the politics of the prisons (prisons as institution) and negativity of the everyday resistance. The former perspective comes from the “idea” or the “object” of the modern imprisonment. As aforementioned, underlying strategy of the prisons is to sort out the “ragged”, “undesired” ones in order to create the “desired”. This negative form of relationality is something as exclusionary inclusion. As enunciated earlier, “saying no” is associated with the “existence”, mainly with the “survival”, which takes us to the matter of everyday life, the second part of the negativity issue. In order to “survive” the weak one has to use the metis in decapitalized, disembodied world of everyday life6. But this has to be done in a “negative” way; not by unifying but by

5 The original statement is as follows: “What has to be explained is not the fact that the man who is hungry steals or the fact that the man who is exploited strikes, but why the majority of those who are hungry do not steal and why the majority of those who are exploited do not strike.” (Reich, 1970: 19)

6 Here, attention is drawn to the idea of de Certeau’s everyday life and its relation with the discussion of “belongingness”. 4

“cutting into pieces” (dismemberment); making “innumerable and infinitesimal transformations of and within the dominant cultural economy” (de Certeau, 1984: xiv). These two aspects of “saying no” form, in a dialectical way, another negativity: the negativity of everyday resistance within prisons. Power, by spreading terror, secures and strengthens itself. This is the fear of imprisoning: outside, the result of “saying no” is to be confined within the institutions of power. But when this institution is prison it gains a new dimension. Because in any other institution there is always this fear of imprisonment. But within the institution in which this is actualized, the “resistance” and the “power relations” gains new forms. “Saying no” inside is not the same with the outside; the same is true for the practices of power. In other saying, prisons are institutions in terms of showing new ways of “saying no”, “the creative way of living”.

Here, different from what Nietzsche said, it is claimed that the oppressed by opposing create a new space for themselves. Acting means “agenda building”, which is also related with the organization of the society, “society building”. Looking from here, the relationship between the subject and the power is an issue of acting and reacting. Subject by opposing becomes the one who acts (in a sense it is also a reacting, but since it creates new conditions, it is acting), for the power on the other hand, it is the act of reacting. The act of the subject is creative in that sense. It is creative since the power does not know anything about it; it employs known methods until it reaches the information only at that time it responds. Holloway advocates that:

Humans are subjects. […] Subjectivity refers to the conscious projection beyond that which exists, the ability to negate that which exists and to create something that does not yet exist. (2005: 25-26)

This ability of the subjectivity is the weakness of the power, which is used as the “weapons of the weak”. De Certeau is the one who craftly realized this weakness. The “tactic” is “the art of the weak”, which has no space on its own. As William Bogard declared “discipline always creates gaps, spaces of free play which embody new possibilities for struggle” (as cited in Rhodes, 1998: 266).

Could we really look from another way, from the angle of the transformation which affirms the life? This is the perspective which “creates possibilities” or offers some areas to the identities, to the situations which are illegible, illegitimate, in our case totally segregated from the society with all her/his rights are suspended. This issue of “opening up possibilities” bears vitality in the true sense of the word.

Herein, the main discussion topic will be about the ontological status of the law: whether there is something a constitutive law. This question has a significant place since the discussion of (everyday) resistance and opposition will question it at the very beginning. If there is, then how could we talk about the creativity or invisibility (invisible from the power)? Otherwise, rather than the law, we will talk about the constitutiveness of resisting. This will be de Certeau’s answer to Althusserian negative dialectic.

1.2. Theoretical Framework The issue of “power” has been a “popular” research subject especially from the analysis of Foucault. It is not surprising to claim that the history of humanity also is the story of the “voyage of the power”. Throughout the history, the issue of power has been the “big question” of the thinkers. As aforementioned, there is a general tendency on the literature that focuses on the oppression and the one side of the power. However much the appearance of Antigone and the others have attracted the humanity, this voyage is full of violence and terror. But this does not mean that there is no other way of seeing the issue. In that sense, resistance generally has not taken a role at the stage in real terms, which is the main subject of this research.

The framework of this thesis has its major conceptualization borrowed from the important theoretician, Michel de Certeau. His theory on resistance will be loadstar to understand the ambivalent relation between the power and resistance. The main focus will be made on the concept of “tactic” in order to understand resistance practices in the daily life of the political prisoners. Also “metis”, “poiēsis” and “resistance forms of everyday life” will be the main concepts which will be touched

6 upon throughout the thesis. This understanding of “resistance” will give a new perspective on the issue. Resistance practices mostly experienced as an open, visible way by the people who have the capacity to do that. However within this “new” understanding of resistance, practices are mostly invisible and secret and done by the people who are deprived of this capacity. In our case, although political prisoners have the capability to the subjects of those practices, they are deprived of this capacity, especially with respect to physical obstacles within prisons. In that sense, in this thesis, we will be dealing not with the commonsensical understanding of resistance but with the creative positioning of the political prisoners within such places.

Firstly, Michel de Certeau’s theory on everyday life practices will help to cover a lot of ground about the understanding of resistance. This form of understanding of resistance comprises more invisible and everyday mode in the works of Michel de Certeau. He objects Foucault because of his too much emphasis on the violence of the order. For de Certeau, the goal is “to bring to light the clandestine forms taken by the dispersed, tactical, and make-shift creativity of groups or individuals already caught in the nets of ‘discipline’” (1984: 13). As stated previously, the emphasis must be on the details and multiplicity of the practices to opposing the power itself. That infinite variety of practices which consists of creativity, trickery, fraud is called as metis by de Certeau. In that sense, “‘metis is a web of narrow roads in an uncertain, antagonistic environment; it is putting thread through a pinhole”7 (Erdoğan, 1999: 9). Many everyday practices, for de Certeau, are in that character.

De Certeau, in his work, talks about two ways of resisting and opposing to the power: strategy and tactic. They are, in principle, distinguished from each other with respect to their “place”. To put it in another way around, the basic difference lies in the place of the practice, which is directly related with the issue of belongingness: the issue of “whose place”. This, according to de Certeau, results in a distinction in the context of the time and space. This distinction is crucial in terms of the matter of prisons

7 “‘Metis, belirsiz düşman bir çevrede bir dar yollar ağıdır’ ve ‘iğne deliğinden iplik geçirmektir’” 7 where the issue of space would be the main focus. In order to recover the definition and meaning of resistance, the significant difference between the ‘challenging the system’ and ‘taking over it’ must be analyzed. Michel de Certeau insists that these two are totally different both because of their conditions of existence and of their results.

Although our main focus will be on the tactics, it is important to give the definition of the strategies since merely in this way we could understand this “new” way of understanding the resistance. To start with the strategies, they are “the calculation (or manipulation) of power relationships that becomes possible as soon as a subject with will and power (a business, an army, a city, a scientific institution) can be isolated” (de Certeau, 1984: 36). In other words, strategies draw the borders of their “own places”. As a military strategy and a Cartesian attitude, strategies “delimit [themselves] in a world bewitched by the invisible powers of the Other” (1984: 36).

On the other hand, tactics, which will be taken as the focus of the study, are not the products of authorized space or power, but are compelled to conform the formal rules of the other because the “place of the tactic belongs to the other” (Ibid., xix) . As a consequence, tactics indebted their power to their invisibility and sophistication which makes them creative when compared to strategies. De Certeau enunciates that a tactic “takes advantage of ‘opportunities’ and depends on them, being without any base where it could stockpile its winnings, build up its own position, and plan raids” (1984: 37). “Within the enemy’s field of vision” a tactic generates itself. As Ahnert states “(they are) the clever tricks of the weak within the order established by the strong, an art of putting one over on the adversary on his own turf, hunters tricks maneuverable polymorph mobilities, jubilant, poetic, and warlike discoveries”. (2013: 30)

In de Certeau’s conceptualization, to resist or to point the weapon of the power to the powerful itself, it is important to look at the “‘miniscule’ technical procedures acting on and with details, redistributing a discursive space in order to make it the means of a generalized ‘discipline’ (surveillance)” (de Certeau, 1984: 13). However, these acts of opposition and resistance do not generate homogenous practices and 8 languages. They “do not produce identical effects” (1984: 15). In that sense, it is important to look at the details in which we can see the possibility and multiplicity of the resistance and opposition practices. Looking and analyzing these details and practices would be what Deleuze suggests “new weapons” (Deleuze, 1992: 4). This is the stage of tactics which is not a “Cartesian attitude” to the issue of dialectic od resistance and power.

“By the absense of a proper locus” (de Certeau, 1984: 36) tactics position themselves “in the space of other” like a trojan horse. Thus they are“organized by the law of a foreign power” but not by its own rules. In that sense, they must be content with what they have (actually what the power presents to them). In that sense, the tactic as an art of resisting resembles the art of the pacthwork: to make a whole, unifying what is put behind. Similarly, de Certeau calls this art as bricolage. The date of this vital art is older than the history of humankind. As it was uttered by de Certeau,

But they [tactics] go much further back, to the immemorial intelligence displayed in the tricks and imitations of plants and dishes. From the depths of the ocean to the streets of modern megalopolises, there is a continuity and permenance in these tactics. (1984: xx)

The purview of the tactics belongs to the purview of power. Because of this unbelongingness with respect to space, tactics are dependent upon time. They watch for opportunity by manipulating the situations. This gives rise to the possibility of reversal of the power relations.

Throughout the research, the main focus will be on the issue that “how those in prisons make themselves independent from the local/spatial roots”, “possibility of transcending the existing relations with creating new tools are new mechanisms”. For short, the problematic here is that: what are the tactics and poiēsis that the prisoners used to exceed the walls of the prisons?

1.3. Significance of the Research This research aims to present a new understanding of resistance, the term that is talked so much but in a narrow context. With the rallying cry of Deleuze, this research intends to create “new weapons”, which will result in the “redefinition” of this special social action and (re)creation of the fact. When viewed from this aspect, the study itself could be seen as a resistance and accordingly “creation”, poiēsis. It will be an urge to rethink the “meaning of the resistance” by focusing on the reversal of the domination with the poiēsis in prisons. It asks whether there is a new form of relationship with the dominator.

Furthermore it will be a reflexive effort since over emphasis on the issue of tactics throughout the thesis will lead both the researcher and the reader to think these “microphysics of power” in a reflexive way. As in the words of de Certeau:

And hence it seems to me that this analysis, as its bond to another culture is rendered more explicit, will only be assisted in leading readers to uncover for themselves, in their own situation, their own tactics, their own creations, and their own initiatives. (de Certeau, 1984: ix)

The thesis also takes the issue of “placing the prison in the totality of social relations” as a goal. This will bring a new perspective about the issue of prison as an institution. As it is known, Foucault defines prisons as institutions where the new form of power mechanism is applied which means that are the institutions in which power shows itself. However, to put it the other way around, this study affirms that those institutions are unmistakably the place of resistance.

As a social space, prison presents an alternative form of life by pointing out the new types of resistance. By the description of those places, this study attempts to contribute to the literature of the “social space” and to understand how this “social space” is related to the issue of power.

The literature on prisons has a place especially in America and continental Europe. Although the resistance side of the issue is somehow ignored, recently the studies on the everyday life in prisons have gained acceleration. Especially, empirical researches on prisons are wide abroad. However, the respective literature in Turkey 10 needs to be improved since there are very few works on prisons. Although prisons experienced a lot of resistance and death and thus they underwent huge transformations, interestingly the studies on them do not meet this expectation. The attitude of prison administrations and the difficulty of studying prison can be the main reasons for this lack.

Moreover, reduplication of capacities of prisons by the year 2018 and being described as a “good news” by the present government can be counted as the other reasons for the significance of the study. Considering the statement of Özgür Özel, a member of Prison Commission of Grand National Assembly of Turkey, at the present time, nearly all the capacity of prisons of Turkey is used, just 2000 missing. Again according to same Commission, the population of Turkey for the last 15 years increased 24%, whereas the prison population increased 234%8 in 2015. According to the data from General Directorate of Punishment and Detention Houses, while in 2016, the number of convict and prisoner in prisons are 187.6479; it is estimated that this number will be 215.000 by the year 2018 with new incarceration places. In that sense, it becomes significant to study the prisons which will affect such a huge population.

1.4. Background of the Research When it is considered with the developing technology and huge scientific data, in front of the power prisons become testing areas concerned with the satisfaction of this significative desire to control everywhere. Despite the fact that the visible meaning of the prison has changed over time, its structure and design are always closely related with the existing penal philosophy. In the first hand, with respect to penal discourse, the traditional prisons and the “new generation” can easily be distinguished from each other. Especially the organization of space which is directly

8 Retrieved from http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/cezaevlerinde-yuzde-234luk-artis-28629147

9 When I started to deal with this thesis, the number of detainee was 157.063. In every draft, it has been needed to be recovered. 11 related to this desire will be an important parameter. In that sense, the architecture of prisons unmistakably reflects the penal philosophies especially over the last three centuries. This can broadly be characterized as “a desire for reform at the end of 18th century; a move to more repressive practices in the mid-nineteenth century; and a concern for prisoner rehabilitation in the 20th century” (Jewkes & Johnston, 2007: 178).

Historical development of prison architecture in Turkey follows the similar pattern with the general tendency in the world (especially in Europe). In this thesis our focus will be on F-type prisons. However in order to understand the “everyday life practices in the prisons” we will look at the overall experience of imprisonment as a modern sense in Turkey, whose date goes back to last period of Ottoman Empire, especially to Tanzimat, the Rescript of Gülhane, in which the process of transition to prison from dungeon (Eren, 2014: 117).

In order to understand the change and breaks in the historicity of prisons in Turkey, it will be helpful to periodize its history. Periodization of history of prions of Turkey mainly has been done with respect to construction of new type of prisons and according to important dates and years. This new classification is organized with respect to changes in the everyday practices and the architecture. The emergence of the modern prison brought not only new type of management and domination mentality but also new type of organization of everyday life and resistance practices. In that sense, regarding the everyday life within the prisons, the history of the prisons of Turkey could be divided into three parts: chaotic period; period of order; period of isolation.

To get the importance of the issue, it is important to have the current information about the general situation of the prisons in Turkey. According to the data from General Directorate of Punishment and Detention Houses, as of 18 September 2014, in Turkey, there are 365 incarceration places; 302 of them are closed prisons from all types; 52 of them open prisons; 2 of them open prisons for children; 5 of them closed prisons for women; 1 of them open prison for women; 3 of them closed prisons for children. Also other data from this institution exhibits that from the year 2006, 151 12 incarceration institutions are closed. But plan for the year 2018 is to build 153 new gaols with huge capacities in the place of those which are closed. Although it is not certain, most of the new buildings are expected to be F-type prisons.

1.5. Research Design As can be guessed, studying prisons is a jumpy issue in terms of both the inmates and the researcher and the research itself. First of all, while studying prisons, there is a gap between researcher and the participant; inside and out (Bosworth & et al., 2005; Ugelvik, 2014). In that sense, it is difficult to observe the daily prison life from the “outside”, which is important to reach to the resistance practices. Power relation between the researcher and the object of research, in that sense, is felt more than the struggle inside (Bosworth, 2005: 252). In Turkey, there is also another problem of the disconnection between the researcher and the participant: the physical obstacle. The first step to reach a prisoner to make a research on the topic of prison is to get permission from Ministry of Justice. But because of security and other reasons/pretext, it is very difficult to reach those places. The correspondence with the authority takes time and in the main the permission is not given. Throughout the thesis matters of subject and subjectivity maintain their importance. In that sense, identification of the subject of analysis is not constituted just through the side of the power or through the victimization discourse. It is articulated that this one sided perspective, especially in the literature results in losing the chance to comprehend the resistance dynamics and to understand the issue in a broader sense. As Haslam and Reicher stated, “to fixate on processes of exploitation and abuse can risk losing sight of countervailing processes. It can lead to the dehumanization of those who suffered as mere victims, and it can imply blame of those who supposedly went meekly as lambs to slaughter.” (2012: 155). In that sense, the domination, tyranny and the abuse are started to be taken as normal and even inevitable.

According to the laws about the issue of prison in Turkey, there is not a distinction between definitions of “political prisoner” and “ordinary prisoner” in the eye of law. 13

Crimes are defined, according to Penal Code, in terms of their qualities such as murder, injury, corruption, robbery, smuggling etc. However, this distinction generally becomes a determinant element orally (maybe not written) both for lawyers and respondent and for the court itself. In the study, the distinction will be made over the related articles of anti-terror law (TMK10) (especially the articles against the state and its integrity, being member of an illegal organization and aiding it etc.). My focus of analysis will be on the “left wing political prisoners”. In first place, it could be identified as such: those imprisoned because of being “involved in purported ‘political’ actions” (McEvoy et al, 2007: 293) by directly targeting the power/state and trying to change it. Imprisonment for those people generally seen as a consequence or a price for the ongoing battle which is permeated wider social relations both “inside” and “outside”. In this context, different than the “ordinary prisoners” and the “right wing political inmates”, everyday life practices are not separated from the general struggle which is directed to the power. They frequently control all their behaviors and relations with respect to their understanding of struggle. I will try to reveal the “inconspicuous” resistance practices which are actualized in everyday life practices. In other words, despite their attention, I will try to show “unnoticed” but “effective” everyday resistance practices by focusing on the concept of “tactic” of de Certeau. However, bearing in mind the question of “how we could (re)read the history by giving the word to the “mute” (Akbaş, 2011: 16), this research will not use “ready- made” definition of the “political prisoner”. Consequently, the definition of this target group will be made by the left wing political prisoners themselves. Political prisoners generally are sentenced due to ‘membership of an illegal organization’, ‘aiding and abetting’, ‘aiding as well as not being a member’ or ‘actions disrupting the integrity of the state’, or ‘carrying arms and similar tools’. Also some are sentenced due to murder or injuring someone. Even there are some prisoners who are punished from being accused of all these crimes. Therefore, it seems a little difficult to make distinction between them according to law or in a clear

10 Terörle Mücadele Kanunu (TMK). 14 and distinct manner. But it does not lose its importance for analyzing everyday life and resistance mechanisms. Studying those trials and prisoners whose trials are not completed can become negatively influential on the judgment of the court (if it is not given) and on aggravating of the conditions of prisoners. These kinds of studies are not confirmed by prison administration. There is a restrictive institutional approach coming from the committees and a widespread reluctance to allow the researchers access. For my fieldwork, I made in-depth interviews with four different groups. Firstly, with the help of a criminal lawyer, I conducted interviews with the left wing political ex- prisoners and with the lawyers and the families of those who are convicted with life sentence. It is a semi-structured interview type. Mainly, using open-ended questions, I focused on their “everyday life in prison” and coping mechanisms the prison life. Moreover, as a last group, I correspond with 5 political prisoners who experienced those places for many years and are still inside. I used the similar schema of the questions for the correspondence. The interview questions11 are based on three main concepts: everyday life in prisons; resistance practices; coping mechanisms. In section questions for the ex-prisoner first three questions are aimed at to understand and form an estimate of those enclosed spaces. I plan to use those questions and answers to form a general understanding of F-type prisons, as “social spaces”. The questions from 4 to 8 are related with the definition of political prisoner and the meaning of the struggle and resistance to them. The main focus and attention will be on their positioning themselves against the administration and their understanding of struggle and resistance. In order to get the difference between their “strategic” practices and “tactics”, their understanding of struggle and the means of resistance become the important parameters. Questions nine to seventeen are formulated in order to get the information about one of the main concept, “everyday life in prisons” mainly to tactics. Those questions are determined to see “inconspicuous” and “unnoticed” everyday resistance practices by focusing on an “ordinary practices”. Main concerns will be on “creative”, “unspoken” (body

11 See Appendix-1 15 language etc.), “clever”, “tricky” behaviors and practices. Other question sections are designed according to the same plan.

1.6. Thesis Plan This study investigates the everyday life and resistance practices in tactical manner in the prisons of Turkey. As enunciated in the subheading of Statement of the Research Problem and Research Question, this work aims to find answers to minor questions too. Such questions are how inmates experience the prison as a space and how this affects the “everyday resistance”. About the power relations, the thesis asks the questions as such whether there is a possibility to create/generate a counter- discourse in the prisons or to make the critique of power if we are so stucked in it. Each chapter tries to answer those main questions by discussing the minor ones in order to enwiden the problematique.

The thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter I describes research question and tries to give general information about the backcloth. In the Chapter II, the literature on everyday resistance and prisons will be presented. Chapter III presents the approach taken by introducing the broader context. Within this chapter I will firstly assert the prison logic, history of the prisons in Turkey and then I will continue with the method used in the design of the research and the discussions about the “doing the prison research”. Chapter IV will open the “everyday life and tactics in prisons” issues up for discussion. By blending with the findings of the field, I will deal with one of the main arguments of the thesis: how resistance is possible in such institutions. In the last chapter, by presenting the summary of the thesis research, I will conclude the thesis. In general manner within this thesis I will discuss daily lives of the prisoners.

CHAPTER II

2. LITERATURE

The thesis’ subject matter is mainly related with the literature on resistance and everyday resistance. Everyday resistance literature emerged as a critique to the classical resistance theories which take resistance in a rigid and formal way (Scott, 1985; Scott 1990; de Certeau, 1984; Bayat, 1997a; Bayat, 1997b; Bayat,2010; Simi & Futurell, 2009; Butz & Ripmeester, 1999; Kertvliet, 2009). The classical theories on resistance are mainly based on power literature and theories of social movements while defining the act of resistance, which results in narrow and just visible social actions. As a critique to understanding of the concept of resistance in such way, “everyday resistance [literature] suggests that resistance is integrated into social life and is a part of normality: not as dramatic or strange as assumed” (Vinthagen & Johansson, 2013: 3). This new understanding of concept brings in a sense a new definition to resistance which is “a recurrent social phenomenon that has often been ignored, feared, demonized or romanticized” (3). Thus in this chapter I will discuss mainly the everyday resistance literature after mentioning the main arguments of the resistance literature.

Furthermore literature on prison and works on imprisonment have a significant place for my thesis research. Especially after Foucault, prisons and the issue of confinement have attracted the attentions of many scholars. In this chapter, I will review the main studies which are most relevant to the subject matter of my thesis.

Beforehand here we will touch upon etymology of resistance and the dictionary meaning of it. The word “resist” comes from the Latin resistere which means “to take a stand” (Medina, 2013: 48). When compared to its dictionary definition it is neutral. In the dictionary meaning it carries both active and passive meaning: to exert oneself so as to counter act or defeat; to withstand the force or effect of it (2013: 48).

Especially the dictionary meaning will be important to draw the framework of the resistance. It is obvious that the meaning of the resistance has a dialectical dimension; it includes both activity and passivity by taking a stand across a force. In the literature there is a discussion on the framework of resistance and a problematic on drawing the borders of the concept. Former definition of the concept mainly used in the leftist literature to describe the activity of the movements or organization, which has an active connotation. The latter one is generally related with the right wing jargon. However in the everyday resistance literature these two will be intermingled. The distinction still will be important to follow the discussions in the resistance literature.

The concept of resistance is used as a theme in various fields from sociology and anthropology to architecture and political science. It is predictable that there is no consensus on the meaning of the concept. Such that many sub-disciplines like post/colonial studies, works on city culture and youth studies do not refer resistance as the same/similar act. So this resulted in a problem on the definition of the concept.

The conventional understanding of the concept is mostly based on its material prospect. In this context, resistance as a practice is mainly coupled with the terms “protest”, “riot”, “rebellion”, “revolt”. This vein of understanding resistance is nourished from the theories of social movements. The basics of these theories are the emphasis on the class struggle and for our subject matter conventional understanding of resistance.

Coherent with this understanding of resistance McEvoy, McConnachie and Jamieson (2007) give mainly five main forms of resistance in prisons: the creation of alternative communities; the attempts to escape; prolonged legal challenge; hunger strikes and other forms of self-harm; violence and rioting (as cited in Haslam & Reicher). All these elements are based on the materiality of the action and use of body or other corporeal things.

In the article of Hollander and Einwohner (2004), they stress out that scholars are mainly working on the mode of resistance which is material or physical. For them, this is mainly about the issue of visibility. Hollander and Einwohner argue that “early

18 work on resistance, which focused on large-scale protest movements and revolutions whose members confront their targets directly and openly, took for granted that resistance is visible and easily recognized as resistance.” (2004: 539). In other words, it is all about the empirical findings and prospect of the social action to decide on whether a social action is resistance or not. The core problem, which is also significant for my thesis rationale, thus, is the visibility or in the words of Hollander and Einwohner the recognition.

Not to solve, but to define the existing problem in the literature of resistance, Hollander and Einwohner searched hundreds of articles and books on the literature of resistance. They come across that the common ideas in all works on the issue are those: resistance is active behavior and it is something oppositional. In other words, for the sense of action, “resistance is not a quality of an actor or a state of being”. It is about issue of subject and subjectification; it is a process of being a subject. For the sense of opposition, it is related with the agents’ positioning themselves. In this discussion, at the background, it can be seen the debate on creative “saying no” and negativity issue.

To Hollander and Einwohner these two elements –being active behavior and oppositional- are taken for granted consensus within the literature. The main problem arises in the clarification of the concept of resistance. Such that, they formed a typology of resistance of which includes seven different types. The main disagreements on the definition and meaning of the concept are on recognition and intent. As stated above, the first debate topic, recognition, is mainly related with the visibility issue. Hollander and Einwohner manifested the problematization with a question: “Must oppositional action be readily apparent to others, and must it in fact be recognized as resistance?” (2004: 539). “Everyday resistance” has brought a new perspective to the classical and conventional understanding of resistance aforementioned. This new understanding gave birth to a new discussion: if it is not visible and there is no need for the recognition how could we define the resistance and how could we draw the borders to this definition? This is a subtle and really significant question that everyday resistance literature must solve.

The second debate topic for Hollander and Einwohner is the issue of intent. Some scholars put this issue as a criterion for the definition of an act as resistance (Scott, 1985: 290; Leblanc, 1999: 18). For them, the purpose behind the act and the intentionality of the agent is determinant factor to specify an act as resistant. The others, on the other hand, put stress on the difficulty of qualifying and measure the intentionality (Hebdige, 1979). For them, resistance practice can be experienced in unconscious level; being conscious about the act or the purpose of the act is not an essential factor.

By taking into consideration of these two elements of disagreement on the definition of the concept of the resistance, Hollander and Einwohner formulate seven resistance practice types. Those types are: overt, covert, unwitting, target-defined, externally- defined, missed and attempted resistances. Overt resistance is the one which is well accepted in the literature overall. According to their description of the concept, “overt resistance is behavior that is visible and readily recognized by both targets and observers as resistance and, further, is intended to be recognized as such.” (2004: 545). Collective acts and social movements are included in this type of resistance. There is nearly a total agreement on these social acts are counted as resistance. The disagreement occurs in rest of resistance types.

2.1. Literature on Everyday Resistance Everyday resistance literature emerged by means of a crisis in the resistance literature in general and developed especially after 1980s. The concept “everyday resistance” is first used by James Scott who derived it from the everyday practices and power relation in the villages of Malesia. It crosscuts many fields such as feminist, subaltern and city culture studies to queer and post-colonial studies. According to everyday resistance literature, Foucault is an important figure with his emphasis on the micropolitics. However, he has also a misleading tendency to the analysis of power, which made the analysis of resistance become isolated.

According to Vinthagen & Johansson (2013) “everyday resistance is about how people act in their everyday lives in ways that might undermine power”. Afterwards they continue with a warning: it is “not easily recognized like public and collective resistance, […] it is typically hidden and disguised, individual and not politically articulated.” (2013: 2) Furthermore they articulate that everyday resistance does not bring a break or does not aim to make a break in the social structure or relations. It is not a radical way of establishing an antagonistic relationship with power. Everyday resistance is a way of undermining power in its own space in silence. “It is a part of normality” (2013: 3).

Another important argument of everyday resistance theories is that they see a gleam of hope in everyday life. However, for some theoreticians, under modernity and capitalism everything and so everyday life is colonized by the ideology of those systems. Every deed and every feeling gained new meanings in modern times under the consumer capitalism. Led by Lefebvre, this understanding of everyday life presents a pessimistic view that sees daily acts of the masses as routinized and degraded practices. As Gardiner clearly articulated, they argue that “colonized by the commodity and the instrumentalized needs of state and capital, everyday existence could no longer provide the framework through which the human requirement for creativity and inter-human dialogue could be fulfilled.” (2000: 158). This pessimistic view sees everyday practices as “the passive and manipulated consumption of endless signs and images, designed to provide a surrogate form of gratification and to negate any potential discontent” (2000: 158-159). This argument has certain affinities with the thesis of Adorno and Horkheimer who postulated the concept of “culture industry”. To them, the main outcome of modernity and capitalism is the manipulation of objects and events with Weberian pessimism. In disenchanted world, everyday life is “irredeemably pedestrian and commodified” (Agger, 1998: 142).

Needless to say, everyday resistance literature has come up with a critique to this pessimistic understanding. They do not reject the oppressive and dominating side of the system. However they do not accept the total internalization and omnipresence of power. In a sense, everyday resistance literature is an objection to Foucault’s

21 conceptualization of panoptic society. According to Foucault, the Western industrial society is a new form of power mechanism in which a new subjectivity and knowledge of it emerged. These new subjects are the people who internalized the power by self-policing. “The constitution of self-monitoring beings” is an outcome of panoptic society. Foucault designates that this is the age of discipline society in which like the inmate of the panoptic prison, every individual in the society becomes the police of herself/himself. This is the procedure of new age: The age of bio-power. The main objection of the everyday resistance literature to this carceral archipelago is directed to the procedures. The procedural understanding of the system and society designates a single society. However in the literature of everyday resistance concentrates on another face of Janus.

In this part of the thesis, the theoretical framework of everyday resistance will be discussed mainly by referencing four main figures in this literature: Mikhail Bakhtin, Asef Bayat, James C. Scott and Michel de Certeau. Furthermore, there are some important works and articles which are essentially based on those classics and have significant place in this framework. I will also analyze those texts in this part of the thesis.

Mikhail Bakhtin as a philosopher and cultural theorist has an exceptional place among the theoreticians aforementioned since he does not use the term everyday resistance but takes it at as major theme. Thinking with his concepts “laugh”, “carnival” and “grotesque”, his focus on people and the relation of it with the power has a significant place for diversifying and intensifying the discussion on the everyday resistance. Especially his claim about vitalness of laugh and creativity of the deeds of the people has an important side for the debate.

From the very beginning Bakhtin warns us that “pure everyday life is fiction, a product of the intellect” (1986: 154). He insists that everyday life must be analyzed with considering the contradictions it carries, heterogeneity and manifold connections of all social life. As Gardiner argues that Bakhtin does not accept the claim that “everyday life is the realm of the trivial and the habitual and hence devoid of intrinsic value, which implies that meaning must be brought to our lives from such 22 external value spheres as philosophy, religion or politics.” (2000: 50). According to Wall and Thomson, Bakhtin’s concept of “carnival” cannot be distinguished from the everyday. In their words “carnival is steeped in the everyday life, and the everyday cannot be divorced from its other –the carnival” (1993: 66). The major matter for Bakhtin is, as Gardiner again puts it, “that the values and meanings that most directly shape our lives emerge from the existential demands of daily living12 and our immediate interpersonal relationships” (2000: 43). In that sense, without directly it, principal subject matter for Bakhtin is the everyday.

The resistance part of the issue in the works of Bakhtin appears in the concepts that are mentioned at the beginning. The first concept is the carnival, the carnival of the folk culture of humor of Middle Ages and Renaissance. For Bakhtin, carnival is “the feast of becoming, change, and renewal” (1984: 10). Carnival is the moment and place of creativity, rebirth, vividness and resistance. In addition to its generative and creative character, it is an opposition to “all hierarchic distinctions and barriers among men and of certain norms and prohibitions of usual life” (1984: 15). Relating it with the festivity and the life itself, Bakhtin uses carnival as a major theme of his essential matter. To paraphrase Bakhtin:

Thus carnival is the people's second life, organized on the basis of laughter. It is a festive life. Festivity is a peculiar quality of all comic rituals and spectacles of the Middle Ages. (1984: 8).

Festive laughter as a figure of carnival time of Middle Ages had a power to discredit the power of the king, Church and other dominant figures. In the folk culture of humor of Middle Ages, king lost his power of decision vis-à-vis carnivalesque relations. Echoing the tactics of de Certeau, carnival of Bakhtin is the place where the power loses its power (the power to decide). The border between the king and the clown is cleared away. In the words of Bakhtin, “in such a system the king is the clown. He is elected by all the people and is mocked by all the people” (1984: 197). This replacement –in a sense displacement- of the figure of king with the clown figure is a disgracing outcome of the folk culture of the Middle Ages. Clown,

12 Emphasis mine. 23 mockery and laugh in Bakhtin’s texts represent opposition to the official, narrow- minded seriousness and in general to the authority (Rüzgar, 2014). As Dimitriu ponders in her essay on Bakhtin and Breytenbach13, “the roar of laughter symbolically destroys the monolithic seriousness and authority of the ‘official culture’ (1994: 130). It is the “upside down of the whole world” in favor of oppressed. Dimitriu designates deeds in the carnival as “a device to challenge the totalist aspirations of official culture, which are in conflict with the aspirations of the individual” (1994: 132).

Discrediting by laugh is a way of “challenging” and “opposition” to the dominant figures in the society. Other discrediting elements Bakhtin uses are billingsgate and excrement. These are also keys to resistance in the understanding of Bakhtin. While talking about the language of the market place, Bakhtin postulates a new type of communication, a communication which emancipates and free from all hierarchies. Billingsgate is the language of the market place of the Middle Ages and it is “new” in the sense of its re/generative feature. Bakhtin elucidates that this regenerative language constitutes “a new meaning given to the old forms”. That is, it is a resistive creation which alters the old forms. Excrement also has a similar resistant feature with billingsgate. As Bakhtin argues, it is related with the “regeneration and renewal”. Like images of billingsgate, the images of excrement and also urine “debase, destroy, regenerate, and renew simultaneously.” (1984: 151). Dirty Protest in Maze Prison could be a good illustration of the resistant feature of excrement in modern form. Political prisoners (prisoners of IRA) in Ireland as a protest of some criminalization moves of the political power they refused to leave their cells and smeared their excrement to the walls of the cells. In fact, excrement and urine were not taken as life-giving and regenerative images in Bakhtinian understanding. However they, in a way, are used as a tool for resistance. In other words, resistance itself, as aforementioned, is a life-giving and regenerative act. In order to live,

13 It is an important work related to our subject matter. Dimitriu discusses in her essay (1994), “The Trickster and the Prison House: The Bakhtinian Dimension of ‘the Carnivalesque’, in Breyten Breytenback’s True Confessions of an Albino Terrorist” that Breytenbach’s memoir of incarceration and his ‘gallows humour’ bear a carnivalesque aspects and his attempt constitutes “a part of a spiritually-based programme of opposition” (1994: 127). 24 political prisoners of Maze used their excrement to live in better and humane conditions. The result of act is something recalls Bakhtinian understanding of excrement.

Bakhtin’s theory is inadequate for explanation of the everyday life of the political prisoners in F-types. Bakhtin develops his theory with strong focus on the universality and visibility. As an isolated and marginalized places with the strict isolation models (F-type prisons), prisons are at the margin for such an analysis. For him, the nature of folk humor of Middle Ages which takes in all these concepts and images aforementioned has a universal feature. Bakhtin insists that Middle Ages and Renaissance was the peak point of those regenerative and renewal images. In addition, for Bakhtin the power of the festive laughter drew its strength from its visibility. Everything, even the swearing the king and Church, materialized in front of everybody. There is direct “upside down” movement in the folk culture of Middle Ages which happens overtly.

Asef Bayat is another pioneer in the literature of everyday resistance. In his work, Street Politics: Poor People’s Movements in Iran (1997), he analyzes survival strategies of urban slums in Tehran between the years 1977 to 1993. Counter to the orientalist approaches of Western theories about social movements in the Middle East, Bayat “offers an alternative theoretical paradigm to the one of the mainstream Euro-American political science which claims that (male) sociopolitical elites are the only significant agents of change” (Rfaizadeh, 2011: 463).

The major tenor of his texts is mainly on understanding that how ordinary and quite people bring about such huge changes in the society. For Bayat, these changes could be compared with the impacts of revolution although “they are simply the daily practices of survival exercised quietly by the poor” (Mahdi, 1999: 657). He describes these daily and silent resistance practices of the poor of the slums as quite encroachment of the ordinary. In the words of Bayat, quite encroachment is the “silent, protracted in order to survive and improve their lives … marked by quiet, largely atomized and prolonged mobilization with episodic collective action” (1997: 7). The subjects of these “episodic collective action” are the unemployed, 25 immigrants, asylum-seekers, venders. In short, they are the people who have to resist outside of the formal institutionalized channels. Those individuals, as Bayat underscored, in “such a cheerful and secular counterculture” (1997: 4) illegally take over lands, occupy the houses and quarters of the cities and illegally use of public utilities. Adding street vendors, these actions of the poor people of the slums of Iran are the basic examples of what Bayat identifies as quite encroachment.

Bayat keeps distance from James C. Scott’s analysis of everyday resistance of the subaltern. According to Bayat, Scott’s Brechtian understanding of struggle and resistance cannot be tool to comprehend what is going on the slums of developing countries. Bayat argues that everyday resistance practices of the slums are not generally invisible and defensive as Scott disputes. They are not disjunctive actions as well. Bayat accentuated that these practices of daily resistance in Iran, differing from the Scott’s interpretation, are mainly offensive. Bayat remarks that “disfranchised groups place a great deal of restraint upon the privileges of the dominant groups” (1997: 57).

Conservative resonance of the movements (in the Bayat’s terminology they are non- movements) is the other determinant of those daily struggles. He counts these movements as conservative because “the aim [of the struggles] is not to acquire new gains but to conserve the ones already available” (Ay, 2010: 89). This feature of the popular activities in the large cities of Iran differs from the daily practices in F-type prisons in Turkey. Since the acts of the political prisoners in F-types cannot be accounted of conservative. Such that tactics of the political prisoners have demanding and life-giving characteristics which focus on changing the existing structure.

Despite the fact that Bayat’s emphasis on offensiveness and sounding impacts of the poor people’s movements has an important place in the everyday resistance literature, it will be an inadequate theoretical tool to analyze the everyday resistance practices of the political prisoners in F-types in Turkey. It is firstly because the everyday resistance practices in prisons as the way we analyzed in this study cannot be taken as assaultive actions. Secondly, we cannot describe the daily practices in 26 prisons as social movements. Although they resembles to the tactics with their emphasis on creativity and daily practices of the ordinary, they differentiate themselves with stress on the offensiveness of the actions of huge masses. As for prisons, it is not possible to involve such great mass movements with respect to their spatial and political meanings. For spatial meaning, modern system of incarceration of Turkey in which the isolation model is applied does not allow a movement in Bayatian sense. In addition, with regards to harbor many different ideologies and politics, it is unlikely to appear such a movement in political sense.

James C. Scott is an anthropologist and a political scientist who contributed the term “everyday forms of resistance” to the literature. In his work, Weapons of the Weak (1985), Scott stresses on the invisible/less visible forms of resisting taking place in the everyday practices. This new understanding is a break in the meaning of resistance, which points out a different kind of resistance. His basic argument is on the issue of why the subordinate does not radical acts to change the structure/system. For Scott, with this new kind of resistance we will try to find the answer of this argument and he points out that so we are in the field of infrapolitics. Scott talks about the everyday forms of resistance as “a social movement with no formal organization, no formal leaders, no manifestoes, no dues, no name, and no banner. By the virtue of their institutional invisibility, activities on anything less than a massive scale era, if they are noticed at all, rarely accorded any social significance” (as cited in Ay, 2010: 90). As can be seen from the quotation, everyday resistance is movement without movement. It does not carry the features of being a social movement. In fact, there are always breaks in the practices. According to this analysis, everyday behaviors are not just everyday practices but everyday resistance practices. They are not just for survive but for resisting and undermining the power. Those practices are the choices of the subaltern when s/he is in the risk of using the card of rebellion. Scott stress on the anonymity and the safety that this form brought to the subaltern. Thus there becomes no need to attempt to change the system. The weak, according to Scott, with their weapons has to struggle in the invisible field of politics.

The analysis of symbolic politics of resistance made by him is an important subject of discussion in the literature. Like de Certeau’s distinction between “tactics” and “strategies”, Scott makes distinction between the “public” and “hidden” with respect to the (in)visibility of the practices. In Domination and Art of Resistance, he describes the public transcript as “a shorthand way of describing the open interaction between subordinates and those who dominate”. He annotates that “public here refers to action that is openly avowed to the other party in the power relationship, and transcript is used almost in its juridical sense (proces verbal) of a complete record of what was said. “This complete record, however, would also include nonspeech acts such as gestures and expressions” (1990: 2).

However, for Scott, this is not the end of the story for resistance practices of the subordinate. His basic tool to analyze peasant revolts in Burma and Vietnam (in his work The Moral Economy of the Peasant) and also 1970s’ social relations and resistance practices of the village of Sedaka in Malaysia (in his work Weapons of the Weak) is the hidden transcript. Scott clarifies the reason of why there is a need of new term other than public transcript for understanding the silence of the masses. He says “the greater the disparity in power between dominant and subordinate and the more arbitrarily it is exercised, the more the public transcript of subordinates will take on a stereotyped, ritualistic cast. In other words, “the more menacing the power, the thicker the mask” (1990: 3).

Scott, however, sees just looking at the front of the stage as a problem. Such an analysis, according to Scott, would mean that “subordinate groups endorse the terms of their subordination and are willing, even enthusiastic, partners in that subordination” (1990: 4). Main point here is to see what is happening in backstage, in other words, to see the hidden transcripts that subordinate groups use. He defines this type of analysis as characterizing “discourse that takes place ‘backstage,’ beyond direct observation by powerholders. The hidden transcript is thus derivative in the sense that it consists of those backstage speeches, gestures, and practices that confirm, contradict, or inflect what appears in the public transcript” (1990: 4-5). He basically elucidates that obeying the rules or silence is not directly related to the

28 victory of the oppressor. The subordinate uses normalized acts as a weapon towards the oppressor. The driving force behind the system working is this normalized but abused everyday practices. He says that:

By themselves, the simplified rules can never generate a functioning community, city, or economy. Formal order, to be more explicit, is always and to some considerable degree parasitic on informal processes, which the formal scheme does not recognize, without which it could not exist, and which it alone cannot or maintain. (1998: 310)

Formal order, in that sense, is not just a sign of discipline and power but also a productive tool for anti-discipline and resistance. It becomes a field of creative social acts.

Although the concept of hidden transcript has similar connotations with the concept of tactic, we could not take this concept as a theoretical tool for our analysis. The reason is mainly related with how we see F type prisons and how we define political prisoners. Firstly, in this thesis we discuss F type prisons as the places of where the state/power has the total control. They are the place of power where it applies its own rules and regulations. In that sense, it is the place of the other and in that sense there is a dimension of place in the thesis. However, this dimension is not the characteristic of understanding of Scott, especially for his concept of hidden transcript. In Scott’s thinking the decisive aspect of hidden transcript is the invisibility and the notion of offstage which is not easy to operationalize in F type prisons. How can we determine, for example, frontstage and backstage for F types? Secondly, the villagers, in Scott’s analysis, do not have a visible resistance practice in the public space, in the front stage. In fact, they seem like enthusiastic partners in that subordination. What Scott call as resistance happens outside of the frontstage. However, the characteristic of the villagers in Scott’s analysis do not match up with the case of the political prisoners. For the political prisoners, resistance does not show itself in the distinction between the backstage and frontstage. There is a rigid opposition to power also in frontstage. In that sense, the villagers of Malesia does not match up with the political prisoners in F-type prisons in the sense of everyday resistance.

Another important theoretician in this literature is Michel de Certeau. His theory will be a guide for our subject matter. By stressing on the quotidian activities of the ordinary people in France, he strives “to find new ways of thinking about political action and historical change after the 1968 événements” (Moran, 2005: 164). As an ambiguous theme for de Certeau, everyday life is the major object of analysis where dynamism and creativity stand out. However, with modern thinking and meta- narratives of the century, everyday life and its creative side are put away. The homogenized and structural thinking of the modernity is criticized by de Certeau. He insists that the quotidian acts of the ordinary people cannot be understood by the monotheistic approach which sees as the “set of structures and institutions wherein social actors are motivated solely by a narrow, purposive rationality” (Gardiner, 2000: 11).

De Certeau’s criticism of Foucault is parallel to his critique of the modernist current of thought. His anti-Foucauldian perspective is based on anti-discipline. De Certeau strives “to understand anti-disciplines the silent and unacknowledged forms of resistance that break through the grid of the established order and accepted disciplines” (Gardiner, 2000: 168). His main opposition is the panoptic and disciplinary analysis of Foucault. He accuses Foucault of “reducing the functioning of a whole society to a single, dominant type of procedure, in this case the panoptical or the disciplinary” (Gardiner, 2000: 167). De Certeau features the resistance against power; everyday against formal and structural understanding of society; agency against structure.

De Certeau points out the “ways of operating” and “manipulating the mechanisms of discipline”. He states that:

If it is true that the grid of “discipline” is everywhere becoming clearer and more extensive, it is all the more urgent to discover how an entire society resists being reduced to it, what popular procedures (also “miniscule” and quotidian) manipulate the mechanisms of discipline and conform to them only in order to evade them, and finally what “ways of operating” form the counterpart, on the consumer’s (or “dominee”’?) side (1984: xiv)

In other words, de Certeau insists on answer of the question as Scott wonders: how people keep silent in spite of such an unjust system and violence. He argues that everyday life is the place where ordinary people can undermine the power mechanisms with the activity of consumption. As he stated above, “on the consumer side” there is a potential for resistance. For him the act of consumption is not “simply the buying and using of consumer products” (Moran, 2005: 10).

Follower of de Certeau, John Fiske refers to the everyday as a place for resistance with the activities of leisure and consumption. His micropolitics stresses on the creativity of the everyday vis-à-vis “dull monotony of quotidian routine” (Moran, 2005: 10). Referencing de Certeau, he addresses quotidian activities of the ordinary people as “the way of celebrating the individuals who subvert these routines” (2005: 10)

According to de Certeau, there are two types of resisting: strategy and tactic. The former one is based on political, economic and scientific rationality by which the “borders” are visible and rigid. This form is highly similar with the understanding of resistance in the classical resistance theories. According to de Certeau, however, ways of manipulating the system lies in the field of everyday life. In that sense, everyday resistance is an affair of tactic. In his words, tactic means “taking the advantage of ‘opportunities’ and depends on them, being without any base where it could stockpile its winnings, build up its own position, and plan raids. (1984, 37) With tactic, we are in the field of the weak, a battlefield where the weak is trying to negate the strategy of the powerful. “Making do” is a way of reaction of the weak to the strategies of the powerful.

Gilliom and Monahan in their work of Everyday Resistance (2012) adumbrate the characteristics of everyday resistance practices which is interpreted according to the concept of tactic of de Certeau. According to them, the features of such practices are that “they are unorganized, not explicitly tied to broader ideological critiques, and originate from direct concerns in daily life” (2012: 405).

As Gardiner puts it, with this conceptualization, de Certeau “retained a critical and utopian perspective that emphasized the centrality of human agency and the possibility of resistance to the dictates of bureaucratic reason, whilst at the same time distancing himself from the more grandiose revolutionary schemes of Lefebvre and Debord” (2000: 158).

F-type prisons are considered as the places where there is a total segregation and isolation from society and all social relations. Their architecture is designed according to these purposes. In addition to their architecture, their procedures and regulations, also, are designed and planned by the power. In that sense, it is the place of power with all its rules, architecture and regulations. Political prisoners in such places do not accept such policies and demand their right about the special position. In order to achieve this goal, they generate various resistance practices. That is to say, the history of F-type prisons is the history of resistance of political prisoners. Political prisoners arrange their everyday life according to their ideological view which is shaped by this history. However especially the long term residents of this incarceration places, not to mention their ideological positioning, generally and relatively form more cheering and creative everyday practices which can be described as tactics of de Certeau. Both being in “other’s” place and creative everyday practices which solves many daily problems from cooking to communication and undermines the power with reducing to absurdity their rules and regulations.

2.3. Prison Literature and Studies on Imprisonment Prison, together with law, warfare and policing, is viewed as a key element of the broader process of social ordering designed to sustain hegemonic definitions of right and wrong as well as maintain the existing social order and dominant forms of class and race relations. (McEvoy, 2007: 294)

The subjects of punishment and prison generally debated within the context of modernity, human rights and social progress. Especially the emphasis on modernity

32 and trilogy of power-knowledge-punishment became widespread after Foucault’s reading of the institution of prison. On the other hand, the political-economy of punishment is the subject that Marxist theoreticians lay stress on.

Within the context of the present study, in this part of the thesis I will focus on the pioneering studies on the prison and incarceration, and on how scholars have discussed the issue of everyday life in prisons. Additionally, I will present briefly that how the issue is discussed in Turkey with referencing the studies conducted in Turkey especially about F-type prisons. For the former, I wish to pursue main theorists of penology namely Georg Rusche & Otto Kirshheimer, Donald Clemmer, Gresham M. Sykes, Michel Foucault, David Garland, Haslam & Reicher.

Georg Rusche and Otto Kirshheimer are the leading figures in this literature. Originally published in 1939 Punishment and Social Structure identifies three functions of prison in the current era. The idea here is similar with the discussion of discipline and control society or transition to society of control from the society of discipline. The first function of prisons, as Foucault enunciated, is the control of the poor. Prison and imprisonment is equalized with the control of the relative surplus population. Second function of these confinement institutions is the disciplining the poor, in that sense, these labor reserves will meet the demands of the labor market. The last function of prisons is the deterring the poor; by focusing on the morality, the exclusion of prisoner and dignification of the working poor.

Another important contribution to prison literature is made by Donald Clemmer who was “trained sociologist and criminologist [and] has been for almost ten years on the staffs of the Classification Board” of a state prison (Ackerson, 1941: 442). He contributed to the literature by introducing two important concepts which are major themes in the discussions within the literature. The first one is the “prison community” that is the title of his significant work The Prison Community (1940). For Clemmer, prison forms its own culture which is specific to it. The culture of prison, though it mirrors the social structure in the “free community”, sets its own world with its own language (mainly argot), with its own leisure and own behavior. This culture results in prisonization. Prison resembles a machine which turns a 33 criminal to more criminalized person. Clemmer, in his pioneering work, “analyzes the bases and processes within that culture and describe its effects upon the inmates” (Shalloo, 1941: 766)

Like Clemmer, Sykes also analyzed prison as a distinctive structure and a special social system. Sykes declares that “prison as a society within a society” (1958: xii). His book The Society of Captives has become the classic in penology and criminology. In his study, as an object of analysis he examined the social structure of a state prison called New Jersey State Maximum Security Prison with 300 staffs and 1200 adult male prisoners. The reason why he took this maximum security prison as his focus is explained by himself as “in this way the maximum security prison can supply a prism through which we can see the spectrum of forces at work when social control nears its extreme” (1958: xvi). Sykes, by examining a classic American prison, concludes that the prison system forms a different kind of social relations special to it. His emphasis on prison argot is for to show how those relations occur in the language. In our case, also, there is a special language of the prisoners. Not being counted as argot, prisoners’ “hand-made” language shows that prison constitutes its own codes and is “organized around different deviations from the central value system” (Crewe, 2007: 126).

Michel Foucault is another thinker who has a huge effect on the literature of prison. Examining the change in the power mechanisms, he advocates that the type of punishment has changed throughout the history resulting with the change in social relations in the society. Prison as an institution represents a place where relatively a new type of punishment unraveled. Torture as a public spectacle which was the classic figure of the Middle Ages, as Foucault states, disappeared by the end of 18th century and beginning of the 19th century (Foucault, 1975: 7). Instead, in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Foucault argues that “from being an art of unbearable sensations punishment has become an economy of suspended rights” (1975: 11). This shift from body to mind is the important and distinctive feature of the new power mechanism which “affects life rather than the body”: Discipline (1975: 12). Of equal or greater importance is the fact that this implies a new type of

34 subjectivity: formation of docile bodies. The panopticon is the symbol of this new disciplinary society which targets the soul rather than the body like the old power mechanism. The similar historicity can be seen in Turkey. Prison as a punishment mechanism started very late in Turkey. Before this date the punishment had focused on the body like the Europe of Middle Ages. Today with legislations and implementations, F-type prisons in Turkey can be seen as a prototype of this new power mechanism.

David Garland (1990) also an important figure on the issue of penology and the mentality of the imprisonment. He focuses on the logic of the punishment and argues that the old punishment types are out of use since the society sees them as barbaric and felonious. In our civilized world, these barbaric feelings and pain are standed out behind the prison walls. In that sense, prison as an institution, a symbol of modernity and of the civilization by means of its power to hide.

Another important comprehensive work on the resistance literature on prisons belongs to Haslam & Reicher. Former, “When Prisoners Take over the Prison: A Social Psychology of Resistance”, mainly labor on “developing a social identity model of resistance dynamics”. They accepted the definition of resistance as a social action and an oppositional act which is stated in the work of Hollander and Einwohner (2004) as common points of the literature on the definition. From the view of the social psychology, they talk about two well-known experiments about the issue of resistance and power in three prisons known for their awful histories: Maze, Robben Island and Sobibor Extermination Camp in Nazi Germany. Haslam and Reicher argue whether resistance is related with consciousness or not.

The first experiment is Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) which is significant to “shift the analysis of oppression from the level of individual personality to the level of contextual (more specifically group) influences” (Haslam & Reicher, 2012: 155). The second argument of SPE is the one that does not make any room for the resistance and struggle: a negative view of groups in which people are seen to conform blindly to collective pressures that (almost) inevitably lead to oppression.

It is the second experiment (BBC Prison Study – BPS) which is mostly talks about the possibility of resistance rather than the tyranny. Its main argument can be summarized as such: “even in a prison-like setting (which can be seen as an extreme metaphor for the inequalities that are characteristic of many, if not most, institutions), prisoners can resist and even subvert the authority of their guards” (Haslam & Reicher, 2012: 155).

The everyday life in prisons are examined and studied in various contexts and ways. Especially the social structure and the social relations in those places have attracted many scholars attention ever since the theoreticians aforementioned. Prison Readings, Handbook on Prisons, Doing Time are significant overarching studies focused on this issue. With Clemmer’s and Sykes’ classical studies on the prison life, everyday life in the prison has been studies with referencing to M. Foucault (Baer & Ravneberg, 2008; Lacombe, 1996; O'Neill, 1986), M. Bakhtin (Dimitriu, 1995; Dimitriu, 2000), E. Goffman (Wulbert, 1965) and G. Agamben (Gregory, 2006). Finally, de Certeau’s theory which is the main theoretical framework of the existing study is tackled by Ruth Ahnert in her important work, The Rise of Prison Literature in the Sixteenth Century. Ahnert analyzes 16th century literary works of prisoners by referencing the concept of tactic of de Certeau.

Literature of prison in Turkey consists of to a large extent memoirs and literary works about those memoirs. Although, last couple of decades have witnessed a considerable interest in these themes, within the academia in Turkey, the prison and imprisonment are not popular themes compared with the attention in Europe and USA. Three main reasons can be counted for this lack of interest in Turkey. Firstly, the themes prison and imprisonment are the political issues. In other words, to choose those themes as a subject of matter is a political choice. In such a geography where the relationship between the politics and academia is constructed through right wing politics and understanding of marketing, such a topic for study would be far better a political choice. Secondly, especially after Return to Life Operation14 many torture events,

14 Hayata Dönüş Operasyonu 36 violations of basic rights and inhuman treatment have experienced in those places. And the prisons as institutions are protected like sacred spaces in order to overlap these torture events and violations. In that sense, the studies which do not take sides with the predominant view and do not approve F-type prisons are not supported and generally blocked. F-type prisons which completed their 15th anniversary still remain unknown. This problem of access affects remarkably the ignorance of the issue. Last reason for the lack of interest about the issue of prison and imprisonment is related with the structural state of the prisons. As Sykes and Clemmer talked about, prisons are the special institutions which can be defined as “society within a society”. They generate their own languages and social relations. Dealing with such a complicated and closed matter requires relatively more effort and labor.

As mentioned above, the prison issue in academia in Turkey is a limited but a developing area. Various disciplines have interested on the prisons such as psychology, social services, architecture, education and training, public administration, forensic medicine and nursing, Turkish language and literature, history, anthropology, economy and communication sciences. Especially psychology (Erkut, 2003; Aydın, 2010; Arslan, 2011; Yarkın, 2013; Gençer, 2014), history (Adak, 2006; Çiçen, 2010; Kızılkan, 2011; Demirkol, 2012; Koca, 2015) and sociology (Canel, 2003; Ercebe, 2007; Çelik, 2008; Gürtuna, 2009; Yanardağ, 2009; Akın, 2010; Oral, 2012; Barış, 2015; Aysu, 2015)) are the presider disciplines in this literature. The discipline of psychology mainly deals with the coping mechanisms of the (ex)prisoners, deviancy and social adaptation in such incarceration places, the effects of loneliness to the prisoners’ mental health. The discipline of history, on the other hand, mostly studies the prison systems and punishment mechanisms in the Ottoman Empire and 19th century. The studies in history commonly point out the transition period: transition to institution of prison from the punishments like kalebentlik, exile. In the discipline of sociology, the issue is handled with referencing to rehabilitation, international agreements, women prisons and dormitory system cases. Among the studies mentioned above, three of them are about women prisons, one is about dormitory system, and two of them are related with F-type prisons and

37 two studies deals with institution of prison in general. It must be noted here that there is no such a study which deals with the everyday life in the prisons.

Moreover there are only six works which can be reached from the database of YÖK (Council for Higher Education) and are directly related with F-type prisons. Two of them focus on the personnel of the institution, i.e. on guards. One of them (Oral, 2012) takes the side of the legal base and its relation with the international dynamics. Among those studies, we have benefitted especially from three thesis: Pınar Canel’s (2003) study of Prisons in Turkey and the Practice of F-type, Barış Can’s work (2010) called The closure of political prisoners, and F-type prisons in Turkey and lastly Ayça Ata’s thesis which is named as Design Proposals for the Interior Formation of Visitors’ Centers in Turkish Prisons. The thesis of Canel was done after the first examples of F-types had been established at the end of 2000. By examining the American and European models of incarceration, she analyzes F-types in Turkey. Although the study does not mention the everyday life, it is beneficial and introductory work about F-types. The second study is mainly on the concept of being political prisoner, which is actually one of the exceptional works on this issue. Can chiefly examines that how this definition have changed over time and what are the breaks in this history. For our definition of the concept of being political prisoner, Can’s thesis was very crucial. The last study on F-types is primarily on the issue of architecture. Ata presents insider information about F-type prisons as an ex- personnel of General Directorate of Punishment and Detention Houses. We have crosschecked our drawings on F-type plans with the information in this thesis.

In epitome, in this part of the thesis, we have firstly dealt with the concept of resistance and how it takes place in the literature. Important figures in this literature are pointed out. Secondly, we focused on the theories on everyday life and everyday resistance. In this context, the study focused on the following thinkers: Mihail Bakhtin, Asef Bayat, James C. Scott and Michel de Certeau. Touching on the important concepts of those thinkers, we have discussed how everyday life is handled in the literature. In the last part of the chapter we pointed out how the issue of prisons 38 is studied in Turkey by referencing to the works in academia. We pointed out especially three of them which are directly related with our subject matter.

CHAPTER III

3. THE CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH

Within this part of the thesis firstly I will start with the conceptualization of the prison. Under the subheading of Logic of the Prison theories about the birth of the modern prison and the changing rationales for the incarceration will be touched upon briefly. Then, prison systems and generations will be analyzed. Secondly, in in the Prisons in Turkey, I will argue the background of the thesis by giving information about the prison as an institution in Turkey and its historicity beginning from the last period of Ottoman Empire. About the prison settlement in Turkey I will focus more on F-type prisons. The prison architecture and its change throughout the time will be monitored. Then I will come up for the discussion about the categorization of the historicity of the prisons in Turkey. With respect to everyday practices and their architecture convenient to these practices, I will adumbrate the general picture of the prisons in Turkey. Under the Field subheading I will describe the field, that is, how I arranged my field study, referring to the organization of the list of questions and the general atmosphere of the field. Then I will discuss, in a sense, the ethical dimension of studying prisons. It will be an argument on the method. I will introduce the field by arguing “doing prison research” with reference to the literature on prisons.

3.1. Logic of the Prison I know of only one perfect and irreproachable work of architecture in the modern city: prison. (Victor Serge, Men in Prison)

A prison is a prison is a prison. (Roy D. King)

In this part of the study, the focus will be on the underlying mentality and logic of prison. Thus it is crucial to look at the emergence of the prisons as the penal institution and the objects of this institution. However on the emergence and the development of the prison there are many different interpretations. Indeed, there is not a well-accepted opinion about the appearance of the prisons in history. The problem underpinning is whether there is a break in history by the emergence of prison or just a development in the penal system. As Soothill (2007) asserted, it is a puzzling issue to understand in the “prison history, how much change has there been and how much continuity” (Soothill, 2007: 29). This debate of “birth” is also related with the discussion of “why prisons”. Many scholars on the issue of surveillance underline that although there is an obvious failure about the objects of the prison, it has been used for more than two centuries as the main penal institution. Thus, this “failure” story is important to understand the place of the prison in the existing social organization. In this part, the logic of the prison will be discussed by touching the issues of “birth” and “failure”. There are some important texts which are pioneers in debate of “birth”: by Georg Rusche & Otto Kirchheimer, Dario Melossi & Massimo Pavarani, Michael Ignatieff, Michel Foucault and Robert R. Sullivan. For the second discussion, I will give place to Stanley Cohen, David Garland and Malcolm M. Feeley & Jonathan Simon.

According to Rusche and Kirchheimer, in their work Punishment and Social Structure, between the 14th and 16th centuries, the first stage of the capitalist accumulation used the people for productive purposes. Especially, beggars, vagabonds and the poor were the raw material for these purposes. However in the end of 16th century and the beginning of 17th century, there was a decline in the population which in a sense created the idea of incarceration not for punishment in real sense but for work. For Rusche, the emergence of the workhouse is directly related with the desire of the capital to control the proletariat.

In The Prison and the Factory: Origins of the Modern Penitentiary System, Melossi and Pavarani ask the question of “why prison?”. In order to answer this question they look at the historical origins of the prison as a penal institution. Following Rusche

41 and Kirchheimer, Melossi points out the relation between the labor market-the market relations, and type of punishments. However, Melossi and Pavarani go beyond the claim of them and advocated that workhouses cannot be thought solely its relation with the labor market but more overarching function of “disciplinary training for capitalist production” (1981: 21).

A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850 (1978),as the name implies, focuses on again the issue of the relation between the market relations and the incarceration as punishment. For Ignatieff, the mentality of the prison is directly related with the mentality of capitalist enterprise. However, he does not end the analysis here. In his words:

Obviously, labor market conditions are only one of the factors determining the punishment strategy. Other factors such as fluctuations in cultural estimations of the proper social distance between ‘normality’ and ‘deviance’ were not determined by labor market conditions (Ignatieff, 1978: 12).

Based on this quote, it can be said that there is not a direct relation between the economy and the punishment system but a parallelism. According to Ignatieff, although the factor of labor market and market relations cannot be eliminated, it is not possible to count it the prime mover.

The famous examination of Foucault on prisons takes the “birth” of these institutions as a beginning for new power relations. They are the symbol of a revolution in punishment which means appearance of a new modality of power mechanism. In that sense, following the Rusche and Kirchheimer (1939), the prison is not just an institution where the punishment is imposed but is decline of a mentality of governing. In his words, “we must first rid ourselves of the illusion that penalty is above all (if not exclusively) a means of reducing crime” (Foucault, 1975: 24). This turning point symbolizes the break between the macrophysics and microphysics of power. For him, the prisons are the tools to perform the social control by the discipline, which forms a new way of operating of the power. As shown in the example of Damiens, in Discipline and Punish, the macropower used to use festive and bloody spectacles to show its power to its peoples. It is the character of the

42 renaissance state to consolidate its power by being on a power trip. However the new modality does not prefer these public spectacles and choose to take place behind the walls. This newly instituted form of punishment shows that it is not the time of the “body of the condemned” but the time of soul as the plot. This is the disciplinary society which is identified by Foucault as the new model of social organization. The prison in that sense is a metaphor for Foucault which illustrates the new power dynamics, the micropower.

Needless to say, this is a powerful analysis of the history of the prison as an institution. In large part of the prison literature and literary language on power mainly follow Foucault’s claim on the emergence of the prisons. Using as a symbol, Foucault dealt with the prisons in order to show the similarity between the renaissance state and the Western liberal democracy which is mostly commemorated as the field of the freedom. On the totalitarianism, both states match However, there comes also a powerful criticism from Robert R. Sullivan in his loaded article called “The Birth of the Prison: Discipline or Punish?”. I want to touch upon his worthwhile critique about the function of the prisons. As he clearly elucidated in the essay, his effort is also the critique of the analyses of Foucault’s theory. He says that

The microtechnologies of power were not introduced into the modern prison, the modern prison was rather introduced to be the housing for the new and promising microtechnologies of power (1996: 456).

Thus, for Sullivan, it is not a birth in fact but “it was the application to the already existing prison of scientific ideas about the manipulation of the soul” (1996: 457).

Almost seen as a defeat, why is the prison used as an institution of penal system and how does it continue its position? Firstly, Stanley Cohen (1996) mentions 3 models for the understanding of the prison history. The first model is the “progressive conception of history”. According to this understanding, today’s prisons are the result of the humanitarian thinking and the progress. For the model, it becomes clear when the prison institution is compared with the punishment methods of the previous centuries. The prison of this model is emerged against the barbarism and irrationality. The second model is also the production of Enlightenment but more complex and

43 uncertain one. It is used by post1960 liberals. Led by David J. Rothman, this model underlines that there is a problem in the idea of reform itself. The point which must be emphasized is not the intentions at the beginning but the ongoing failure. There is a problem in either the statement of the problem itself or in the social reality; the gap between these two is exactly the key issue for this model. The functionality of the institution is still valid. The last model which is the most radical and pessimistic understanding sees the term “failure” is a trick. For this understanding, in order to reply the question “failure or not”, it is not enough to look at how this institution emerged and the idea of prison in 19th century. In fact, a deeper analysis could say it is a success story. However, unlike the prison understanding of the first model, this model does not discuss the prison as a progressive stage in the penal system. According to the supporters of the last model –we can include here Rusche & Kirchheimer, Melossi & Pavarani, Ignatieff and Foucault- the system stay in neither a defeat nor a progress; but it only transforms its functions which are declared before. While all these models try to explain the reason that why the prison still survives through progress, failure and success, Cohen mentions a deconstruction movement that has been emerged after 1960s. This movement basically has been started to attack the base of this control mechanism which was a product of the 19th century. Supporters of the last model proceed from four fundamental routes: estrangement from the state, from experts from institutions and from mind itself. Actually all these four routes reveal reasons of the objection of this movement against confinement and especially the prison institution. For them, the prison as an institution is necessarily a failure from the beginning. Thus, the prison project described as failure is wrong. Instead of this understanding, the supporters of the last model argue that society becomes like a police and it controls itself. Therefore, society has no use for inhumane objects anymore. Works of Garland and Feeley & Simon improve the discussion based upon these ideas.

According to Garland, under the name of policies which are developed for controlling crime in society, society itself has transformed a control mechanism. Political power benefits from this situation by saying that people are responsible for the failure of the policies made for the control of the crime in the society. Therefore it will not be 44 wrong to advocate the defining of the “success” story by state again. For Feeley & Simon, this case actually represents transformation to new penology. Basically it can be said that the new penology which is mainly related to risk and potentiality instead of the situation itself and also holds society “responsible” for the control of the whole. These community-based sanctions about which Garland mentioned above are supported by the states at the expense of tarnishing the image of themselves. Although giving the responsibility to the society is not a positive image, this way of governing is a type of control strategy for the states. According to Cohen, this deconstruction movement emerged after 1960s turns into a Trojan horse. It is because the control mechanism does not make its presence felt from above and to a specific situation but shows itself in a more diffused way.

3.2. Prison Systems and Prison Generations The modern prison did not emerge as it is used today. It is a combination of some sorts of institutions. Although it is a new form of punishment, because of this reason the term is used as if it has a history equal to humanity. It is used to indicate these institutions of confinement all together. Political powers tried many methods to regularize these systems. By using inmates as test subjects, they examined the utility of the various types of prisons. These various types of prisons constitute the prison systems which project different forms of incarceration. The type of living place and social facilities of the inmates are the main criteria for these systems to differentiate themselves from the others. In this part of the thesis, I will examine four well- accepted prison systems –the solitary system, the silent system, the education system and the mark system- and also special to Turkey, the dormitory system.

As a matter of course, the political powers, with the system of trial-and-error, caused three main generation of the prison to occur. They differentiate from each other with respect to their architecture.

Known also as “Pennsylvanian System” or “separate system”, the solitary system is a type of aggravated isolation. Eastern Penitentiary which is opened in 1829 is the

45 first example of this system and the first prison in modern sense. The purpose is the penance of the prisoners. Its architecture resembles a star15. Each wing constitutes blocs which involves the cells of the inmates and separated from each other by large metal bars. Administration situated at the center of the star. Although individual cells are visible for the staff if they do not enter the bloc, by this means every wing in the prison becomes visible for the administration. The spaces between the wings are used for exercise. However because of this heavy isolation conditions, inmates had affected seriously and this prison model had to be softened. Despite this disrepute, this system of prison is deployed by some European countries such as Italy and Belgium (Mete, 1987: 20).

Also known as the “silent system”, “New York system” or “congregate system”, Auburn prison system is a method of 19th century. It is first implemented in 1819 at Auburn, the New York State Prison as an alternative for the solitary system. In this type of prison mechanism, the solitary system is changed with the rigid control on the “communication”. Differently from the solitary system, in the system of Auburn, inmates were taken from their cells to the workshops in the day time for work16. In a sense, total isolation is broken. However, inmates are not free to talk to each other; there are rigid rules about the behavior of the inmates in the common fields (Canel, 2003; Demirbaş, 2005; Gürtuna, 2009). The enforced silence of the system was thought to be rehabilitative. This system is considered a way of repentance and salvation, thus the inmate suffers psychologically in return to the criminal act of him/her. Many of the Northern American prisons used this model as their prison mechanism. However it did not give the expected result. Because of the requirement of keeping staff for surveillance, this system is abolished over time in America (Mete, 1987: 21).

Another prison system is the education system. This system is derived from the object of the panoptic prison architecture. Panopticon is a type of institution architecture

15 See Appendix-2 Figures 1 and 2.

16 See Appendix-2 Figures 3 and 4. 46 which has a tower at the center of the building17. This tower with the help of the light controls every single cell. The aim of the architecture, as Foucault pointed out, is the self-control of the inmates by a possibility of being surveilled without any physical surveillant. According to this model, the goal of prison is to make the inmates become well-behaved. Thus to reach this goal, prison as an institution must be a place of education. In USA, Stateville Prison (1916-25) was constructed with this maxim. The architecture of the prison was designed with respect to Benthamian model. Also Presidio Modelo prison in Cuba is built as a model prison which is active till 1967. Different from the previous systems, this model does not stand on the revenge and reciprocity principle but on the recuperation or rehabilitation. While discussing the failure or success of the prison as a penal institution, this model is taken as a base since it reflects the positive and constructive feature of the prison project. The underlying thought of this model has left a mark on the architecture and logic of the modern prisons.

Known also as English system the mark system is based on hard work and good conduct. This model is developed by Alexander Maconochie at Norfolk Island, the English penal colony. Different than the other systems prisoners are not depended on fixed sentences. They were held till they had collected credits and marks with respect to their proportion of the offenses. After then, an inmate becomes ready to release. Its motto is “let the punishment fit the crime”. Pentonville Prison is a symbol of this model18. Operated by Her Majesty's Prison Service, Pentonville is the first modern prison of England. It is known as its heavy work conditions and 3-step penitentiary system. In the first step, inmate is held in harsh solitary conditions approximately for 18 months. Then, in the second step, the administration sends the prisoner to a colony of England for work. According to the inmate’s behaviors and labor performance, in the third step, there becomes a possibility of conditional release.

17 See Appendix-2 Figures 5 and 6.

18 See Appendix-2 Figure 7.

The systems aforementioned have a common feature: cell system. They all impose penalty by isolating the people both from the rest of the society and from the community of the prison. Many inmates in these types of the prison systems are held in total isolation and do not come across anybody except from the correction officer. However in the ward/dormitory system, the total solitary confinement is used as an extra punishment for disallowed behaviors in the prison. The examples of the architecture of the dormitory system could be given from the pre-2000 prisons in Turkey (figure). All the prison types except from the F, T and D-types which are built at the end of the 1990s (some parts of L) are constructed according to this logic. The object is mainly to remove the “dangerous” ones from the society whose members are not involved in a crime yet. As separate from others, people in this type of the prison system could have the chance and possibility of forming a collective everyday life practices. Ulucanlar19, Metris, Bayrampaşa, Diyarbakır and Erzurum prisons are the examples of the dormitory system prisons. The architecture of the dormitory system prisons differs from time to place. But they commonly have two sections: dormitory and yard. In both places, inmates spend time together.

As aforementioned, these systems are segregated with respect to inmates’ living conditions and social facilities. Now, in the context of prison generations we will deal with the development and change in prison architecture. There are three main prison generations: Conventional, New and Campus Schema. These generations fit the equivalents in Turkey as we will examine next heading.

The first generation prisons are the prisons of the late 18th century which were simple and single-function. They are mostly reinforced concrete buildings surrounded by high external walls like castles. The aim of the conventional type is to intimidate the people and deter them from crime. To do that, this generation attaches importance to the external walls of the prison. The architecture of this type is either circular or linear (Ata, 2008: 14). The second generation is called new generation prisons based on podular schema. They are established to rehabilitate and socialize inmates, not for

19 See Appendix-2 Figure 8. 48 revenge or retainment. In this type, to control the inmate population the prison architecture is formed according to group surveillance. This is to control the prison community easier way. Millbank prison design is a god example of this architecture type. Another distinctive feature of this generation is the separation of the life units from the common fields (Ata, 2008: 16). The last generation prisons are called campus schema or small village. In this generation, the prisons become self- supporting units with their workshops, dining halls and cafeterias, health units (Ata, 2008: 19). In Turkey, Silivri and Sincan prison campuses are the examples of this generation.

3.3. Prisons in Turkey Historical development of prison architecture in Turkey follows the similar pattern with the general tendency in the world (especially in Europe). Although our focus will be on F-Type prisons, in order to understand the “everyday life practices in the prisons” we will look at the overall experience of imprisonment as a modern sense in Turkey. The date goes back to last period of Ottoman Empire, especially to Tanzimat, the Rescript of Gülhane, in which the process of transition to prison from dungeon (Eren, 2014: 117). With the arrangement of the “Prison and Detention Camp Regulation” in 1880 prison as a punishment institution became the apex of this process (Bilbaşar, 2000: 45).

3.3.1. Prisons in Numbers To begin with, it is important to have the current statistical information about the general situation of the prisons in Turkey. According to the data from General Directorate of Punishment and Detention Houses, as of 5 January 2015, in Turkey, there are 361 incarceration places; 290 of them are closed type prisons from all types; 60 of them open prisons; 2 of them juvenile reformatory house; 5 of them closed prisons for women; one of them open prison for women; 3 of them juvenile closed prisons. 14 of them are F-type prisons. Also other data from this institution exhibits

49 that from the year 2006, 169 incarceration institutions are closed and 131 old type prisons are going to be removed within 4 year20s. But plan for the next years 64 new gaols with 5 billion and 271 million budget will be completed21.

According to the latest data of the General Directorate of Punishment and Detention Houses in Turkey, the prison population has reached over its capacity by the year 2015. By the March 2016, there are 187,647 people in the prisons of Turkey. %3.7 of them are women; %1,3 of them are children; 1,8 of them are foreign prisoners. The general capacity of the prisons in Turkey with 362 incarceration institutions is 179,88322, which means there is an overcapacity problem in the prisons of Turkey with the occupancy level nearly 100 %.

After the remission of punishment known as Rahşan release, the prison population decreased from 70.000 to 49.000. Now the population increased % 260 reaching to 180.000. Within these 15 years, the population of Turkey increased %15 while the prison population has grown %260. According to the TBMM Human Rights Commission, 8.044 of them are there because of terror crimes; 169.400 of them are ordinary prisoners and 2.167 of them are sentenced due to organized crimes23. Within those institutions 51.109 personnel are employed. Along with the population of the incarcerated, there are 56.772 citizens who were chased by the police within the context of probation. Also 2.492 citizens are controlled by the electronic bracelets.

According to statistics of ICPS (International Centre for Prison Studies), among the prisons in Europe, Turkey does not have a good scorecard24. Especially prison

20 http://www.cte.adalet.gov.tr/

21 Retrieved from https://www.yarinabakis.com/2016/05/02/hukumet-5-milyar-liraya-64-yeni- cezaevi-yapacak/

22 Official capacity of prisons in Turkey according to the World Prison Brief (WPB). Retrieved from http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/turkey

23 http://t24.com.tr/haber/mahkum-sayisi-yuzde-250-artti-hukumet-165-cezaevi-yapacak,325379 24 See Appendix-3 50 population rate and occupancy level of the prisons in Turkey is in an alert state. Prison population rate per 100,000 of national population is 238. With this score Turkey is the 5th country among the 57 countries which have highest scores in the list. Those countries are Belarus (306), Georgia (262), Lithuania (254) and Russian Federation (453). However, except from Turkey, the countries which have highest scores in the statistics of prison population rate do not have problem with the prison capacities. The countries which have relatively low prison population rate but have problem of capacity insufficiency are Albania (125,6), Belgium (111,1), Bosnia and Herzegovina Federation (102,1), Republic of Cyprus (112,3), Czech Republic (104,4), France (113,9), Hungary (130,5), Italy (108,4), Macedonia (136), Portugal (112,1), Romania (103,3), Serbia (106,4), Slovenia (114,3), Ukraine (120,4) and England & Wales (111,9). Turkey is the only country which has both high prison population rate and high occupancy level (102, 4). This shows that Turkey still takes the incarceration as the main punishment type and dependence of the penal system to the incarceration is growing. When compared with the European countries, Turkey shows similarity with the prison statistics of Romania. Both have high prison population rate and similar rate of occupancy level. Unlike Turkey, however, Romania shows a trend of decrease in the prison population.

3.3.2. Periodization of Prison History of Turkey In order to understand the change and breaks in the historicity of prisons in Turkey, it will be helpful to periodize its history. Periodization of history of prions of Turkey mainly has been done with respect to construction of new type of prisons and according to important dates and years, such as construction of A and B type prisons or the date of transition to multi-party system. One of these periodization types is done by Mustafa Sağlam who was a deputy general director of the Ministry of Justice. He divided the history of the prisons in Turkey into four generations with respect to the architectural features of Turkey prisons. To have a general idea of the types of the prisons and the evolution of them, Sağlam’s categorization will be useful.

According to Sağlam’s periodization (as cited in Eren, 2014), the first generation prisons are the prisons which were used in the Ottoman and first Republican period. The majority of these prisons had subsequently been built for other purposes. As their equipollents in the Europe, in the prisons of Turkey, there was no classification of the prisoners. They were mostly located in the city center, not in distance with the military buildings. Hapishane-I Umumi (Sultanahmet Prison) is the only incarceration place which is built on this purpose.

Second generation prisons are A, B and C type prisons which were built between the years 1950-1970. These prisons are stone buildings which has the normal security systems. Those prisons are based on a dormitory system, which would be trouble for the system later. Housing and service units of these prisons are extremely inadequate. They are not placed in the center of the cities but not far away from the urban settlement.

Third generation prisons were built between the years 1960 and 2000, but especially after 1970s. K, E and H (special-type prisons) type prisons and also İstanbul- Bayrampaşa and İzmir-Buca Prisons are included in this generation. “Small dormitory system” is the main common feature of this generation. “Room type" prisons which shelter only one or three people in those ‘rooms’ have also entered into the agenda of the Ministry of Justice for the first time after 1980.

The last period in the history of prisons in Turkey has started especially after 1999 but mainly 2000. D, L, F and T type prisons are included in this generation. The common characteristics of this generation are that all of them are “room type” and high security prisons. Also the location of this type of prison, which is out of the urban settlement, is another common point which distinguishes them the other generations.

Although Sağlam’s periodization is important to understand the general policy of the state on the prisons, we have a new classification with respect to changes in the everyday practices and the architecture which affects those practices. Despite the fact that there is a huge historicity of confinement in this geography, I will start the prison

52 history with its modern form till the last period of Ottoman Empire and especially after the establishment of the Republic. In that sense, regarding the everyday life within the prisons and its modern type, the history of the prisons of Turkey could be divided into three parts: chaotic period; period of order; period of isolation. Chaotic period is nearly same with the first generation of Sağlam’s classification25. It starts from the date when prison as an institution began to be seen as one of the major tool of penal system. As abovementioned, in Turkey the imprisonment in modern sense officially started in 1880 with the declaration of the regulation about the Prisons and Detention Camps, but mentally with the declaration of the Rescript of Gülhane. Before that time, the target of the dominant penal system in the Ottoman Empire was on the body. Along with the corporal punishment, the penal system started to focus more on the confinement as the ground of penalty. The main punishment types were “hard labor”, “confinement in a fortress”, “dungeon”, “prangabentlik26” and “tomrukhaneler27”, which were matching the mentality of confinement. As Hür stated (2009), until Tanzimat what the incarceration had meant was holding the prisoners in order to strip their skins, bury them alive, rending their testis and force-feeding them, pouring salt into wound, cutting the organs of the prisoners and etc.

In the Ottoman Empire, the first imprisonment situation took place in the era of Yıldırım Bayezid (1389-1402). Germiyanoğlu Yakup Bey imprisoned and then escaped from the prison. Also within the same period, the imprisonment of Alaaddin Bey in Bursa and of the Muslim judges in Yenişehir occurred. But still all these events do not arise with the mentality which accepts imprisonment as a punishment. Although the people in those events experienced it like a punishment (none had resulted in death), the place in which they stayed acted as “waiting rooms” (Öztürk,

25 At that point, Şaban Öztürk’s work on the history of prisons in Turkey was very helpful to follow historically the everyday pattern in those places.

26 Prangabentlik is a punishment type which is carried out putting chain to the foot of the prisoner (Eren, 2014, p.104).

27 This punishment type gets its name from “timber” used as a punishment and interrogation tool. 53

2005). In the Ottoman Empire, because of the implementation of Shariah (Islamic Law) until the second half of the 19th century and because there is no such punishment as imprisonment, it is not possible to speak of prisons as the places of execution of custodial penalties (Demirbaş, 2005: 28-29).

In the Ottoman Empire, generally bastions, called as dungeons, were used for the imprisonment. With respect to the type of the crime, for the imprisonment in İstanbul, Yedikule, Baba Cafer in Eminönü, Tersane in Kasımpaşa were used widely (Demirbaş, 2005: 29; Şen, 2007: 6). For example, burglary, murder, debt and adultery detainees were send to Galata dungeon; political and military detainees to Tomruk in Babıâli, Yedikule, Rumelihisarı and Tersane. Not the institution or the Empire itself, but the charitables provided help and aid. Dungeons of İstanbul closed down in 1831 and a part of İbrahim Paşa Palace called as the place of janissary band (Mehterhane) in Sultanahmet turned into Hapishane-I Umumi (Public Prison).

I will presently continue with the periods of prison systems in the history of Turkey. As stated before, the periodization of the prison history will be done with benefitting from the memoirs and biographic works. In this work, the history is written not by “the captains, kings and the others”, as Hoffman says, but the real subjects: political prisoners.

3.3.2.1. Chaotic Period28 In the Ottoman Empire, imprisonment as punishment of deprivation of liberty adopted for the first time with the criminal law dated 1840, 1851 and 1858 in Tanzimat (The Rescript of Gülhane) Period (Kurt, 2006: 51). Before those times the accepted punishment type was the corporal punishment. Especially 1958 penal procedural law which was valid till 1926 specified the kinds of punishments at that time. According to this law, imprisonment corresponds to petty crimes from 24 hours to three years (Can, 2015: 35). Amendment of the conditions of prisons, as Bozkurt asserts, the abolition of torture and torment (except from the rules established by the

28 See Appendix-4 54 state itself), prohibition of harsh behavior and also punishment of the officers who ordered harsh behavior and who applied it were involved in the Royal Edict of Reform (Islahat Fermanı) (as cited in Bozkurt, 2012: 262).

Starting with the Tanzimat and continued with Islahat, prison rehabilitation studies entered a new era with the Prison and Detention Houses Regulation (Hapishaneler ve Tevkifhaneler Nizamnamesi) dated 1880. With this regulation, the number and capacity of prisons and detention houses were discussed. With the first article of the Regulation, it was proposed that in every center of town, shire and province there must be prison and detention house (Bozkurt, 2012: 262-263; Gazel, 2005: 145; Yıldız, 2002: 298).

The situation of prisons attracted notice of the state in 1922 and then after a commission for the rehabilitation of prisons established. On the report of the commission, by the examination and the analysis of prisons in Europe, some important decisions were taken with respect to the prisons in Turkey. These decisions were the reorganization of prisons in provinces; the construction of 3 prisons in big cities, İstanbul, İzmir, Selanik. But because of the war and the economic condition of the state, all these decisions and demands were delayed (Gazel, 2005, p, 151).

The first prison opened according to those new regulations is the Hapishane-i Umumi which was built in one of the section of İbrahim Pasha Palace. Other “famous” prisons of this period are Bekirağa Bölüğü, Üsküdar Paşakapısı ve Zindan Hanı, today’s Diyarbakır Prison No 2 which is built in 1890. The prisons in those times were mostly not purposefully built. They were mostly the state buildings and bastions. They are the inactive structures which were activated to “hold” the people inside, which is a similar understanding the old power mechanism Foucault talks about.

As might be expected, many opponents of the era were in prisons and jails. Yedikule dungeons, Sinop Castle, Taif Dungeons were the haunts of those people (Can, 2015: 36). For example, the founders of Ottoman Socialist Party, Hüseyin Hilmi and his friends and also Mustafa Suphi are kept in Sinop. These are the experience of

Unionists in Bekirağa Bölüğü in 1919: “Since the prison does not give a dinner, the foods are taken sent from home or are bought from the outside. … There is an illegal canteen within the administration’s knowledge29.” (Öztürk, 2004: 34). Nearly every year big arrestments to the socialists were common in this period. 1921, 1922, 1923, 1925, 1927, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1939 Military College and Navy Trials, 1944 Ankara, 1944 İGB (The Progressive Youth Association) and TSKEP (Socialist Workers and Peasants’ Party of Turkey) trials were some of them (Eren, 2014: 207).

There was a big arrestment of the socialists in 1921. As Öztürk asserted, they are the first socialists of the Anatolia who decorated their dormitories with flags and pictures (Öztürk, 2004: 49). Due to the flock, the administration started to interfere in the politics of the prisons. The politics of the power on the prisons started to change as the end of the period came up. The first time in the history of the prisons of Turkey, the executives made a categorization among the prisoners. The ordinary prisoners and the political ones were separated from each other. As Faik Bercavi stated “since there was a prohibition on being all together, in the dormitory which has enough capacity for 200 people to sit and sleep was allocated for 34 people30”. This separation made possible to have a separate history of the daily life history of the political prisoners.

The conditions of the prisons were very poor and the everyday practices of the political prisoners were organized according to improve these conditions. Halikarnas Balıkçısı (Cevat Şakir Kabaağaçlı) describes the place he stayed during his execution this way: “Cebeci prison was newly built. What should I say, room or cell, there was even no ceiling. […] Also, there is no grid on the windows31.” (Öztürk, 2004: 70). As

29“1919’da İttihatçıların Bekirağa Bölüğün’de yaşadıkları: “Hapishane tarafından yemek verilmediğinden, yemekler ya evlerinden getirtilir ya da dışarıdan aldırtılır. … Yönetimin bilgisi dahilinde yasal olmayan bir kantin de kurmuşlardı.”

30 “Diğer mahpuslarla bir arada bırakılmaları yasaklanmış olduğu için, iki yüz tutuklunun oturup yatmasına yeterli olan yer, sadece 34 tutukluya hasredilmişti.”

31 “Cebeci hapishanesi yeni yapılmıştı, bir çok odalarının mı diyeyim, hücrelerinin mi diyeyim daha tavanı bile yoktu. […] Sonra penceresinde demir filan yoktu” 56 can be seen from the words of Halikarnas Balıkçısı, the prisons did not provide the requirements of prison in modern sense. There was no safety measure which is a major sine qua non for the modern prison. In that sense, the prison in this time was just a barrier which distinguished the prisoner from the rest of the society. Halikarnas Balıkçısı states in his book “Mavi Sürgün” as like following: “the room resembles our home, far from a prison. That is, we are free to live whatever we want in yards during the day, in dormitories during the nights on the condition that we do not leave the door on the yard32.” (Şakir, 1998: 91). Another important figure of those times is Zekeriya Sertel. He talks about the Sultanahmet Prison (Mehterhane) as a ruin. He asserts that “this place did not look like Ankara Prison. The building was a ruin from the period of Byzantium. There were thousands of prisoners inside33” (Sertel, 1969: 171). However, Ankara prison was not very different than the others with respect to the living conditions. As Öztürk states that “in 1935, Ankara prison had not lightened by electricity. The problem of warming was solved by stove and loophole34” (Öztürk, 2004: 154).

There was an increase in the population of the prisons after the establishment of the Republic. This was a result of the new punishment system which took the incarceration to its center. 1 July 1926 was an important date about the new system. It is the date of release of the Turkish Criminal Law. After the entry into force of the Law, punishments of dungeon and confinement in a fortress were dismantled (Demirbaş, 2005: 34). In 1933, the Ministry of Justice decided to establish prisons based on work. This decision was a result of 1929 Great Depression which resulted in the labor force demand (Hür, 2009).

32 “O oda [koğuş] bize hapishane köşesinden çok, kendi evimiz gibi geliyordu. Yani avlunun ucundaki kapıdan çıkmamak koşuluyla gündüz avluda ve gece o koğuşta istediğimiz gibi yaşamakta serbesttik.”

33 “Burası, Ankara hapishanesine benzemiyordu. Bina ta Bizans döneminden kalmış eski bir harabe idi. İçerde binlerce mahpus vardı”

34 “1935’te Ankara Hapishanesi henüz elektrikle aydınlatılmamaktadır. Isınma sorunu da soba ve mangalla çözülmektedir.” 57

The population in that time was mainly composed of ordinary prisoners among whom there was a hierarchical relationship. For example, the people with high income and prestige had a place in the most comfortable points with good living conditions whilst the poor could hardly find a place near the door sill with very poor conditions (Aydemir, 1971: 428-430). However, the situation of the political prisoners was very different than the ordinary ones. Political prisoners were reactive to those degenerated relations among the ordinary prisoners and they tried to change them. They carried a work on the abolition of gambling and narcotic crimes among the ordinary prisoners (Öztürk, 2004: 86). Another reaction of the political prisoners to this new type of punishment was to improve a commune system in the daily life within the prisons.

There was another big arrestment in 1925. 38 socialists were arrested at that time. Since they were crowded, they gave the first examples of communal life in a primitive way. The needs of the dormitories are provided with the communal way. The budget was organized at all hands and the stuffs that had been bought were distributed among all the members of the commune in a fair way. In addition to stuffs and needs, the duties and responsibilities were faired out among the political prisoners in that time. Öztürk describes the atmosphere of the dormitories of the political prisoners in Bursa in 1933 that “inside the dormitory the communal life is dominant. The problem of food & beverage was solved with the communal life35” (2004: 146). Daily life problems and affairs were shared out among the political prisoners and except from the handicapped and elders the routine activities were musts for all. “Routine affairs are shared out. 3 people who know the cooking and shopping were pressed to these services. Washing-up and the cleaning of the dormitory were provided in sequence among them36” (Öztürk, 2004: 148) However, this distribution did not happen in a systematic way. Since the imprisonment was a

35 “Koğuşta devrimci bir yaşam egemendir. Yeme içme sorununu komün oluşturarak çözmüşlerdir.”

36 “Günlük işler bölünmüştü. Alışveriş, yemeğin pişirilmesine bu işleri bilen üç arkadaş verilmişti. Bulaşık ve koğuşların temizliği istisnasız ve sırayla hepsi tarafından sağlanıyordu.”

58 new punishment type, the attitudes of the political prisoners were not collective. Many times there were failures in the commune system.

The political prisoners in those places spent their time with organizing education times. This was another attitude to the power’s new system of punishment. As Öztürk stated “after returning dormitories from the yards the history and language courses were started … [also the courses on] historical materialism, dialectic, the history of the Turkish War of Independence, labor movements in Turkey, trade unionism etc.37” (2004: 149-150).

The leisure time activities of the political prisoners were another coping mechanism. The political prisoners who were imprisoned because of their thoughts started to exercise to improve their thought with some intellectual activities. The leisure time activities of the political prisoner in this period were reading books, newspapers and magazines, backgammon, card games, domino and leapfrog as sport.

It is a debatable issue whether the establishment of Republic constitutes a turning point for the history of prisons in Turkey. Westernization in this period was a continuation of Tanzimat and Meşrutiyet. There was an urge to carry out the previous decisions about the politics of prison. However this urge remained just as an urge due to the war conditions and economic situation of the state. After the establishment of the Republic, the government concentrated on the superstructure proper to the infrastructure. But the first regulation was made on the field of law. With 1924 Constitution, Turkey entered a new judicial era. It was the announcement of the abolishment of the Islamic law and establishment of a secular system. However with respect to prisons, there was a continuation of the predecessor system and regulations. The administration was not fully equipped with the true mentality. Many rules and implementations were done arbitrarily. For example, normalization of narcotics and gambling in the prisons was not a problem for the administration. In fact, within some prisons those activities were supported.

37 “Avlulardan koğuşlara dönüldüğünde tarih ve dil derslerine başlanırdı.” “…tarihi maddecilik, diyalektik, Türk Kurtuluş Savaş tarihi, Türkiye’deki işçi hareketleri, sendikacılık vesaire” 59

To sum up the profile of the prisons in the first years of the Republic, the buildings, especially in the cities and towns of Anatolia, were remainders of the Ottoman Empire. The modern prisons were built after the adoption of the Western understanding of execution system. The old buildings were used after restoration and/or with additional buildings. Some basic needs such as food and bed were supplied by the prisoners themselves. As Demirbaş stated:

Although some buildings are built as prisons under ordinary circumstances, all of them are dormitory system prisons; none of them has cells which provide conditions and principles of the time. None of the prison population is appropriate to the load capacity; according to load capacity for each prisoner one and a half square meter is used as a criterion. […] The buildings are deprived of even the most primitive rules of hygiene. […] Far from the classification of the prisoner, distinguishing the youth from the adult, even the convicts from the people under arrest is not possible. With respect to personnel, the prisons are in a deprivation. The prison administrations are deprived of necessary qualifications and requirements. Guards are also very ignorant people. Being a guard is an ordinary job rather than a job as profession38. (2008: 144- 145).

As can be seen from the quote, the prisons in the chaotic period did not work as a provider of new judicial and punishment system. From the point of personnel situation, this time prisons showed themselves as a chaotic institution which had not an aim other than just a basic incarceration.

In conclusion, the everyday practice in the prisons of this period highly resembles a chaotic situation. In that sense, prisoners also could not have developed a regular and ordered practice of prison life. It is chaotic, in the sense that, the implementations and practices in those prisons differed place to place, time to time (even month to

38 “Binalardan bir kısmı mahsus surette cezaevi olarak inşa edilmiş bulunmakla beraber, hiçbiri cezanın, günün telakki ve prensipleri dairesinde infazına elverişli değildir; bunların tamamı koğuşlardan ibarettir ve hücre yoktur. Hiçbir cezaevinin mevcudu, istiap haddiyle mütenasip değildir; istiap haddinin tayininde, her mahpusa en çok bir buçuk metre kare tahsisi suretiyle asgari bir kıstas kullanılmıştır. […] Binalar en iptidai hijyen kurallarından dahi mahrumdur. […] Hükümlülerin sınıflandırılması bir yana, küçükleri büyüklerden, mevkufları mahkumlardan ayırmak dahi mümkün olamamaktadır. […] Hapishaneler –personel noktasından- daha derin bir mazhariyetsizlik içindedirler. […] Hapishaneler, hemen daima zaif şahsiyetlerden terekküp eden ve bu itibarla da lazım gelen evsaf ve şeraitten mahrum bulunan müdürlerle, hemen tamamen cahil denilebilecek derecedeki gardiyanların elinde bulunmaktadır. Gardiyanlık mesleki bir vaziyet olmaktan ziyade çok alelade bir iş”

60 month). This “chaos” was due to the fact that there was no (almost no) an ordering centralized management for the prison staff. There were huge differences between the regulations in the prisons in İstanbul and the prison in Anatolia.

3.3.2.2. Period of Order39 The idea of management started to be formed after 1950s when Turkey was witnessing an important political turn which was related with the global developments. The beginning of the period witnessed new balance of power within the international context. After the end of the Second World War, the world entered a new war which was named as “cold war”. In global context, this war created a two- pole world in which the third world countries were the key figures with respect to the strategies of parties. The constitution of NATO, the establishment of the People's Republic of China, formation of the special warfare techniques were the key events of the beginning of this period.

By covering up with the Truman doctrine and Marshall Plan, Turkey chose its side. McCarthyism which was started in USA in 1946 as a witch hunt for communists influenced this period in Turkey (Öztürk, 2004: 272). In Turkey, it showed itself as with the closure of legal socialist parties in 1946 and the arrestments of the members, the arrestments of TKP (Communist Party of Turkey) and the repression on the youth and academia. This atmosphere created in order to give confidence to NATO which is an anti-communist alliance had an important influence on the prisons. After the Democrat Party had come into the power within 3,5 years 149 prisons are built whilst between the years 1929-1950 only 87 incarceration places are constructed (Hür, 2009).

At first of the period, Democrat Party immediately started to build type prisons which had a specific aim according to new punishment system which brought order to the management of those places. A, B and C type prisons were established. A type (A, A1, A2, A3) prisons were mostly single-floor and low capacity incarceration places.

39 See Appendix-4. 61

They were in the status of small, town prisons which had very poor living conditions. B and C types were established according to dormitory system but again in a low capacity. To solve the capacity and condition problems after 1970s E type dormitory system prisons were built. These prisons had 600 people capacity with some social facility places like sports areas, meeting halls, libraries and etc. Metris was an E type prison which was established after 1980. Unlike previous large dormitories, these prisons were the places in which only small group (at most 18-22 people) could come together. In addition, they had cells for the punishment. Those two-storied prisons which had been based on dormitory system were changed into “room” type prisons. These rooms are for 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 people and each room has its own exercise yard. The top floor is allocated for sleeping; the ground floor is used for daily activities, especially for cooking and watching TV. In those prisons, there are special dormitories for women and juvenile. There are active 45 E type prisons which are transformed into smaller capacity prisons.

The other prison types peculiar to this period were K (K1, K2), M (Special type) and H (Special type) type prisons. The establishment of these types was a response to the rise of the revolutionary movement in Turkey especially after 1960s but mainly in 1970s. These types were fundamentally built according to the dormitory system with a group isolation. Sağmalcılar Prison was an example of this special type (H type) prisons which were organized in the capacity of 4-6 people to live. The rest of the prison consists of cells. At the end of the 1980s, Eskişehir H type Prison was activated. Until 1999, Eskişehir Special Type Prison was activated and closed four times. In every activation, political prisoners resisted to go to this prison by invoking the death fast.

In the works of Şaban Öztürk, the direct relation and intervention of the state to the prisons could easily be seen. The political power saw those buildings as the prototypes; the organization of the buildings was made according to the political power’s plan about the society in general. That is the organization and regulation of the prison system in this period reflected the social policy of the political power which approached violently to the revolutionary movement.

With Democrat Party after 1960s, important law amendments occurred. In 1965, Law of Execution no 647 came into play. In other words, the execution was ordered by the law. This was suitable with the spirit of the period. The law regulated in detail from the separation of the convicts from the detainees to the regulation of time limit of the sentence. Also, within this law political prisoners were taken as the group who must be separated from the ordinary ones. In 1967, in order to ease the implementation of the law, the Regulation of the management of the Penal İnstitutions and Detention Houses, and about the Execution of Sentences went into effect (Eren, 2014: 189). Many articles of the regulation were about the ordering the everyday life of the prisoners in details. Especially article 121 is prominent. It says: Each institution has its own internal regulation which shows the manner of life of the convicts and detainees in detail 40(Eren, 2014: 192).

This period also witnessed the rising of the left of 1960s which resulted in an orderliness of the prison life with respect to political incarceration. In that sense, the rise of the Turkish revolutionary movement affected directly the everyday life of the prisons which were inevitable end for a leftist of that time. The prisons were that much crowded due to the massive arrestments.

The original roots of the revolutionary movement in Turkey occur at the same time as this rise. The left had not been fragmented yet. Federation of Debating Societies (Fikir Kulüpleri Federasyonu) was the unifying platform of the youth in that time. The three fundamental orientation of the revolutionary movement of Turkey is grounded upon this federation: THKP-C (Turkish People's Liberation Party-Front), THKO (People's Liberation Army of Turkey) and TKP-ML (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist–Leninist). These three different traditions which were mainly distinguished in the times of 1970s constitute the today’s political composition of prisons.

40 “Her kurumun, hükümlü ve tutukluların kurum içinde yaşayış tarzını ayrıntıları ile gösteren bir iç yönetmeliği bulunur.” 63

Another breakpoint for the prisons was the 1971 Turkish Military Memorandum. After the memorandum on 26 April 1971, the Marital Law was proclaimed. Political prisoners started to be detained in the military prisons any longer and they were put on trial in the military courts. After the coups d’etat, the prisoners in military prisons were decided to be counted as soldier (Eren, 2014: 213). The prisoners were forced to live under the military rules which had not been usual for the lives of those people. For example, the prison uniform, giving oral report by the prisoners in soldierly way which were addressed to order the lives of the prisoners entirely and the reasons of the great prison riots in coming years were implemented in a fast way after the 1980. However, very few of them were successful due to the resistance of the prisoners. In that sense, 1980 was the beginning of the bloody time in which the every resistance act was suppressed by the political power and military. In one sense, 1980 and coming 5 years were the years that can be counted as both in chaotic period and period of order. It is chaotic since at the beginning of the 1980 the prison capacity was 54.000 however one year after the coups d’etat the prison population increased to 95.000. The prisons of the period were “troubled places which suffered from rehabilitation, physical and legal problems” (Eren, 2014: 219). However, this was the superficial image of the prisons. The post-1980 period, with legal base, revealed itself into the atmosphere of physical coercion and violence and the resistance to this coercion with well-disciplined everyday-life of the prisoners. The political power was focused on to capture the political prisoners with some regulations. Mix/Reconcile, prison uniform, giving political prisoners status of enlisted man, torture which was turned into a major punishment tool were the distinctive features of this time. The legal case of these treatments was the changes in regulation on the penal institution on 2 August 1983 and 13/1 manual on the penal institution. These changes were based on the ordering of the prisoners’ daily lives. Prisoners were categorized; prisoners detained due to anarchy and terror crimes were separated from others. Against this military discipline many riots and resistance practices were organized by the political prisoners. Especially, Mamak, Diyarbakır, Sağmalcılar, Metris, Davutpaşa prisons were the places of these riots.

Likewise the response of the prisoners to this mentality was similar with the political power with respect to its method. In those times, the prisoners also (re)ordered their everyday life practices and their usage of the “space”. This is the period of “commune system” in which the prisoners brought rigid rules and implementations especially in their daily lives, which was mainly the result of the dormitory system. Radicalization, of course, has ensued, especially the last years of this period. Many sensational resistance examples were given (1985-86, and 1996 death fasts are the most striking ones), which, in one sense, were used excuse of the change in the prison system.

For example, at the beginning when the administration first enforced the system of choosing a veteran in order to infiltrate into the dormitory of the political prisoners turned into an area of representation. As Akbaş (2011) mentioned, this system became a criterion with respect to the relations between the prisoners and the administration.

The commune practices in the prisons were put the foundations in this period in a more systematic way. In fact, in chaotic period there was a commune system among the everyday practices of the political prisoners but this had not been in this density.

Within the period of order, the prisoners tried to capture the prison as a place. They labored to make the place themselves by adding something from themselves. The appropriation of the prison as place was a response to the power which forced them to live in such places.

Baton dance of the political prisoners of Mamak was a striking example. While being stroke by the guards or the gendarmerie, prisoners were used to make interesting moves which were called baton dance by the prisoners (Akbaş, 2011: 81).

In the dormitory system of the period of order, there was a carnivalesque atmosphere in Bakhtinian sense. Especially in special dates and after the torture session in 1980s prisons dormitories became the places of carnivals. In those years the pillaging the dormitories by the soldiers was an ordinary event in the prisons. Without exception, every day the dormitories were used to be searched and were pillaged by the soldiers. The reaction of the prisoners to these attacks was notable. As Yıldız narrated, “in the 65 evening when they returned to their dormitory […], we would hear that they were used to relax by dancing before tidying up the dormitory41” (Yıldız, 2012: 175). A similar story comes from Reha İsvan who was arrested after coup d’etat and detained in Mamak. She witnessed a pillaging of the soldiers in Mamak and described the atmosphere like that:

My actual concern, the real frightening thing was that how these very young girls enter to the dormitory. […] Yeah, I was dreadfully waiting what would they do. Do you know what they did do? […] They immediately organized entertainment, festival. Like what they did after the gauntlet or other torments. On one hand, they sing songs, ballads, on the other hand, they dance42 (Oral, 2013: 50).

Creative resistance practices put forward correlatively with the cruelty and oppression of the power. These practices were the tactics of de Certeau. For example, four prisoners condemned to death in 1980s steeped tea by making oven with latches in order to break the ban (Yıldız, 2009: 397). The other examples are necklaces made from olives or the making chess set from the crumb. The creativity of the prisoners transformed everything in the dormitories. In their words:

They did not know that our creativity has no end… We were hiding our uncompleted handworks into from the holes of the wall to junction and fluorescent boxes. These were the methods which did not come to their minds. We were hiding those things into our secret stores; were ripping off what we had knitted and at the same time we were knitting again.43 (Öztoklu, 2015: 40).

The tunnel digging attempts in this period were important everyday practices. Especially the concealment of the soil which appears aftermath of excavation was

41 “Akşam koğuşlarına alındıklarında […] dağıtılan eşyalarını toplamadan halay çekerek stres attıklarını duyuyorduk”

42 “Asıl endişem, asıl dehşet verici şey, şimdi bu gepgenç kızlar, bu koğuşa nasıl girecekler. […] Evet, girince ne yapacaklar diye dehşetle bekliyordum. Ne yaptılar biliyor musunuz? […] Derhal bir eğlence, şenlik düzenlediler. Tıpkı sıra dayağından ya da başka eziyetlerden sonra olduğu gibi. Bir yandan şarkılar, türküler söylediler, bir yandan da halay çektiler”

43 “Ama bilmiyorlardı ki bizim yaratıcılığımızın sınırı yoktu […] Elimizdeki yarım elişlerini duvarlardaki buat kanal ve deliklerinden floresan kutularına kadar akıllarına gelmeyecek onlarca ‘zula’mıza saklıyor, giydiğimiz kazakları bir yandan söküyor, bir yandan yeniden örüyorduk zuladaki şişlerimizle” 66 the main problem for the prisoners and forced them to develop creative solutions to this problem. The dissolving the soil into the water, hiding it behind the cabinets were some of these solutions (Arikan, 2014: 78).

Baskın Oran narrates ordinary day of the political prisoners in Ankara Central Closed Prison in 1971 as like the following:

Indeed I must start with the breakfast. The commune guard, after taking the morning ration and buying the milk, clears the table. […] There is a tea-seller who blows in the dormitory as soon as the doors open however as a principle the commune does not drink the administration’s tea. After the breakfast until the lunch, the commune members do not let anybody in. The preparation for the lunch starts on 11.30. Since the food are absolutely inedible, the guys do not take soup, pea meal etc., generally make omlette or broiled food. I said them by buying and adding oil, tomatoes, onion and pepper, we could certainly eat the food given. They accepted and in this way, we arranged the dinner 44 (Oran, 2005: 19).

Banu Asena Torun describes one day in the dormitory after the coups d’etat. This narration is an example of how the state interfered in the everyday life of the prisoners in a systematic and direct way. She states that

The every moment of our daily lives was planned to the very moment by the administration. Under this program, they would ring the bell for waking up at 6 a.m. Right after the bell they would bring soup. We had to drink soup, wash the dishes, clean the dormitory and before 7 a.m. we had to wait for the roll-call. Right after the roll-call, before the lunch, we had practical for one hour and one hour theoretical education. Within one hour, we had to finish our lunch, wash the dishes, clean the dormitory. At 1 p.m., there was an education time for one our again. Without rest, one hour practical and one hour theoretical education time would start. The time for airing was just 20 minutes. […] At 6 p.m. the dinner would be brought, within one hour, the dinner had to be finished, the dishes must be washed,

44 “Aslında sabah kahvaltısından başlamalıyım. Komün nöbetçisi sabah tayınını aldıktan, sütünü de satın aldıktan sonra sofrayı topluyor. […] Kapılar açılır açılmaz içeri askısıyla dalan bir çaycı var, ama komün ilke olarak idarenin çayını içmiyor. Sabah kahvaltısından sonra, öğle yemeğine değin normal olarak koğuş azaları kimseyi koğuşa sokmuyorlar. […] Öğle yemeği hazırlığı 11.30’da başlıyor. […] Verilen karavanalar öldür allah yenebilecek gibi olmadığından, bizim çocuklar çorbayı, nohudu filan almıyorlarmış, genellikle menemen veya kızartma yapıyorlarmış. […] Oysa kantinden yağ, domates, soğan ve biber alarak kavurup içine katarsak karavananın bal gibi yenebileceğini söyledim, hemen kabul ettiler, akşam yemeğini öylece hallettik.”

the dormitory must be cleaned. We used to wait for the roll-call. The sleeping hour was at 10 p.m.45 (Torun, 2015: 15)

Quoting from Tahir Canan who is the prisoner stayed in prisons in the longest time in Turkey, this section finishes with a basic comparison between the dormitory system and F-types. Canan states that “regardless of attacks and stress of the dormitory system, there was, at least, a communion atmosphere. You had the chance of contacting with people, speaking and communicating with others in difficult times. In the cells, however, there are just wall and door!”46 (Arikan, 2014: 110).

3.3.2.3. Period of Isolation47 The last period is the period of F-Type prisons, which is similar with the last period according to Sağlam’s classifications. However, there is not adequate information about the everyday practices and the implementations related to F-Type prisons. It is firstly because it does not have a long history when compared to other periods. Secondly, there is a rigid control mechanism that does not allow any information to be taken outside. Thirdly, due to its isolated character, it becomes difficult to obtain wide range information unlike the dormitory system. But it is not difficult to predict that when compared with the old systems, this new type of incarnation both because of its feature of isolation and high security character, the everyday practice must have

45 “Günlük yaşamımızın her anı idare tarafından dakikası dakikasına programlanmıştı. Bu program gereğince bir günlük yaşamımız şöyleydi: Sabahleyin saat altıda kalk zili çalıyor ve zilin ardından hemen çorba geliyordu. Çorba içilecek, bulaşıklar yıkanacak, koğuş temizlenecek ve saat yediden itibaren sayım için hazır beklenecekti. Sayım biter bitmez, öğle yemeğine kadar, bir saat ameli eğitim, bir saat nazari eğitim yapılacaktı. Öğle yemeği saat on ikide geliyordu. Bir saat içinde yemek yenecek, bulaşıklar yıkanacak, koğuş temizlenecek ve saat birde tekrar eğitim başlayacaktı. Dinlenmeksizin, bir saat nazari, bir saat ameli eğitim. Havalandırma süresi sadece yirmi dakikaydı. […] Akşam saat altıda yemek gelir ve bir saat içinde akşam yemeği, bulaşık ve koğuşun temizliği bitirilir, saat yediden itibaren sayım için hazır beklenirdi. Ve gece saat onda uyku saati başlardı”.

46 “Ne kadar saldırı ve gerilim olursa olsun koğuş yaşamında en azından paylaşım şansı vardı. İnsanlarla temas etme, konuşma, zor anında dertleşme şansın vardı. Hücrelerde ise kendisi, duvar ve kapı!”

47 See-Appendix-4. 68 been changed almost totally. No doubt, it is the purpose of this research to find out the character of this change with respect to resistance.

In this sub-heading, I will argue the spatial order of F-types and their architectural design which will be a facilitator in the analysis chapter. Since I will deal in detail with the everyday life in F-type prisons, I will bypass the daily routines in F-type prisons.

As aforementioned, the cell type prison was an understanding of penitentiary exported to Turkey. In other words, Turkey is not the country that found cell type incarceration. In every country, it has been implemented differently. In Great Britain, Germany, USA, Vietnam, Latin America, this model of incarceration has its own features.

The cell type is relatively a new type of penitentiary mechanism in Turkey. It has a history of 16 years. However, this history is a bloody one, especially the transition period. 28 prisoners were killed in this Return to Life Operation. Starting with the Buca massacre in 1995, the state’s operations ended in 2000 after sending prisoners to a great extent to F-types. Operation was the last of them. It was carried out by police force and gendarmerie in 20 different prisons. Just in this operation 30 prisoner were killed, hundreds were injured. 1200 political prisoners were sent to F-types after this operation.

The isolation model prison was Eskişehir Special type (H type) prison which was opened first in 1987. It was closed 4 times till 2000. It was barely brought into use in 2000 with the operation. In fact, Eskişehir prison precedes F-types and exhibits that the isolation as a model of incarceration was designed in a systematic and planned way many years ago.

How do F-types to which the prisoners went to death fast in order not to go look like? Firstly, it is important to have general information about the architecture of F-type prisons48.

48 See Appendix-5 for the general plan of F-types. 69

F-types are the prisons that only the persons who are convicted from or on trial due to certain crimes. According to General Directorate of Punishment and Detention Houses, F-types “are high security closed prisons who has suitable places to apply all the treatment programs; accommodate only dangerous convicts and detainees in accordance with the legislation; whose security is consolidated with the physical structure, electrical and electronic security systems and its management plan; are the room type penitentiary institutions which has guards and barriers against escape”.

It has three main corridors which connects 5 blocks, one of which belongs to administration. Two of the blocks belonging to prisoners are big (A and C), and the two are small (B1 and B2). It has 57 single cells and 103 triple cells. In total, the capacity of one F-type prison is 368. They are built by using concrete formwork. Apart from cells, there are indoor and outdoor sports fields, meeting rooms, business workshops, a kindergarten, canteen, announcement and intervention room, control room, library, administrative and service offices, infirmary, surveillance rooms, acceptance, referral and evacuation service bureaus, the offices of general director, the tea shop, the staff dining hall, kitchen, cold storage, generator, laundry facilities, and shallow. As General Directorate of Punishment and Detention Houses announced, in this type prisons, floor is consolidated with matted iron which blocks the attempt of digging tunnel. Sewer pipes are laid in respect to prevent the escape. The administration establishes control with manhole. Driven by the objective of environmental protection, treatment facilities established. In the area of at least 500 meters around construction is not allowed. With 8 meters high wall, the prison is separated from the outside world.

The legal basis of F-types is the article 3173 of the Anti-terror Law. According to this law, the convicts have to serve the sentence in single or triple cells (Can, 2015: 77).

The general plan of F-types is composed of those sections and unites:

At the entrance, there is a sleeping section for the gendarmerie, and also a section in which the body search, photo shooting and doctor control is made and a sleeping section where the prisoners are held before going to their cells”. “The 70

administration block consists of the following sections: the gendarmerie barracks (the room), the prisoner admittance dormitory (room), boiler room, staff dressing rooms, luggage store, 2 infirmaries, doctor, dentist, psychologist, social researcher study rooms, laboratory room, a kindergarten, a multi-purpose room, outdoor sports area, cold storage depot. The blocks belonging to prisoners consist of following sections: contact and non-contact visiting areas, lawyer meeting rooms, library, reading room, hairdresser, a shoemaker, canteen (indoor), workshops, kindergarten, outdoor football field (Can, 2015: 79).

The single cells49 have an area of 10 square meters and are located in at the end of the blocks. There are two doors locked from the outside. The area exercise yard which are made up of concrete vary from 42 square meters to 50. Within the cell50, there is a toilet and a wash basin in a separated section, a wall-mounted bed and a cabinet. The prisoners who are able to afford can buy a television and a refrigerator. However, since every extra thing narrows the cell, they do not generally prefer.

Triple cells51 are 25 square meters and have two floors. Whilst the downstairs are allocated to eating and daily life, the upstairs reserved for sleeping. Toilets are at downstairs and very close to the food service area. At downstairs, there are one table, three chairs, a small sink, faucet, a two-storied cabinet that is made of iron above the sink, mirror, a wall-mounted toilet. On the upper floor, there are only three beds and three wall-mounted cabinets. Every piece is mounted to the wall. Between the beds there is a maximum one meter space. Exercise yards are concrete structures and have 50 square meters. They are surrounded with 8 meters high walls. Every cell has its own exercise yard. The doors open from the corridors are built in last 5 years. There are two windows one on the ground floor and one on the top floor facing to the exercise yard. In addition, there are four more windows facing to exercise yard from the corridors, two at the bottom, and two at the upstairs.

49 See Appendix-6.

50 A detailed description of the single cell by Berkin (prisoner) can be found in Appendix-7.

51 See Appendix-8. 71

Apart from these two cell types, there are cells called “sponge rooms” which have reputation of torture. They are lined with vinylex and do not have toilet and exercise yard. According to administration, these rooms are built in order to hold “dangerous” and psychologically-ill prisoners who damage to themselves. However, many torture and ill-treatment of prisoners took place in those incarceration places.

In F-type prisons, the surveillance technologies are widely used. Some of these technologies are palm and retina scan machines, electronic hand detector, cameras, x-ray machine. In F-types which are monitored by 160 cameras, there are electronic system surveillance centers at the intersection of the two main corridors. 40 monitors are located in these centers whose cost is approximately one and a half million TL (Turkish Liras).

3.4. Field In this study, I focused on the political prisoners and their practices in F-type prisons. This implies a need to the definition of political prisoner and criterion of being political prisoner in this study. In that sense, firstly I will draw the borders of being a political prisoner, starting with discussing the definition of political crime and then I will continue with what the criterion was for being a political prisoner in this fieldwork of this study.

To define political crime is a political issue. It can only be understood within the context of power relations, more than within the context of law. Since the subject of the “crime” has a purpose on the state and its apparatuses, this type of crime is directly related with the system, the state, the power. By its very nature from both sides it requires a political approach and a political result. According to Can (2015), there are two types of political crimes: Pure political offenses and relative political offenses. The former one is the crime which is directed directly to political mechanism of the state and its presence. The latter is the ordinary crimes with political purposes. In this thesis, the former one will be taken as the intended population.

The definition of the political prisoner differs with respect to time and place. In other words, in a specific period or a country/region some behaviors can be described as crime, in some not. As Can discussed, although there is no consensus among the states, there is a common approach on the practice of incarceration of the political prisoners (2015: 9). This approach is also related with the practices and the position of the power but very importantly at the same time to the political positioning of the other side, the political prisoners.

Those definitions were helpful to identify and form the sampling of the political prisoner before going to the field. There was a draft in my mind to select to whom I would conduct interviews. However, these definitions are just for the easing the formation and process of the sampling. In my open-ended, semi-structured interview questions, there was a question about the definition of their positions as political prisoners. Due to facilitator character of the researcher and ethics of the inquiry, the identification of themselves was requested from the interviewees and used in the thesis. They fundamentally pointed out two aspects of being a political prisoner.

The first and the most important one is the self-identification of the prisoner as political prisoner. For the interviewees, both in the political acts and in everyday life practices political prisoner must behave according to their organizational and revolutionary character. They operationalized those behaviors as targeting the system/state and its apparatuses in all their acts; not identifying the prison as the penal institution; not agreeing and coordinating with the administration but resisting and changing the existing system in prisons. They do not accept and see the implementations of the administration as something normal and innocuous. Especially the rehabilitative and curative objects of the administration are not acceptable. The second aspect is the identification of the prisoners as political ones by the state. Here interviewees signalized the law. For the administration, there is not such a category of political prisoner or political crime. The law identifies them with the terror crime and terrorist offenders. According to Anti-Terrorism Law (TMK), terrorism is “any kind of act done by one or more persons belonging to an organization with the aim of changing the characteristics of the Republic as specified

73 in the Constitution, its political, legal, social, secular and economic system, damaging the indivisible unity of the State with its territory and nation, endangering the existence of the Turkish State and Republic, weakening or destroying or seizing the authority of the State, eliminating fundamental rights and freedoms, or damaging the internal and external security of the State, public order or general health by means of pressure, force and violence, terror, intimidation, oppression or threat”. The terrorist offenders, for the same law, in article-2 are “any member of an organization, founded to attain the aims defined in Article-1, who commits a crime in furtherance of these aims, individually or in concert with others, or any member of such an organization, even if s/he does not commit such a crime, shall be deemed to be a terrorist offender”. According to Turkish National Police official web-site52, in order to deal with the “terrorism”, the state constituted four different categories53 in the police organization: Team of left wing terrorist organizations (Team Left-1), team of separatist terrorist organizations (Team 2), team of terrorist organizations exploiting religion (Team Right-3) and team of right wing terrorist organizations (Team Right-4). According to the same web-site, the left-wing terrorist organization for the police organization is DHKP-C; the separatist terrorist organization is PKK/KCK; the right wing terrorist organizations are Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. For the newly added team we can count the trials of Ergenekon, Balyoz, Paralel Yapı, FETÖ and Selam-Tevhid. F-type prisons, being as a high-security prison, are the places of people from those organizations with some ordinary and mafia crimes. According to the Regulation of the Management of the Penal İnstitutions and Detention Houses, and about the Execution of Sentences, there are five crime categories which describes the population in F-type prisons: the crimes against humanity (articles 77,78); crime of deliberate killing (articles 81, 82); the crime of manufacture and trade of narcotic or psychotropic substance (article 188); the crimes against the security of the state (articles 302, 303, 304, 307, 308); the crimes against the constitutional order and the

52 https://www.egm.gov.tr/EN/Pages/terrorism.aspx

53 For this web-site there three different terrorist organizations as stated above. However, especially after 2007 with the Ergenekon and Balyoz trials and lastly “FETÖ”, “Paralel Yapı” and “Selam- Tevhid” trials a new category is added to this grouping: Team Right-4. 74 functioning of this order (articles 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315). There are some practical rules in F-types both to provide security and for political reasons. Firstly, the ordinary prisoners and the political ones are separated in F-types. Secondly, among the “terror” crimes according to state and administration the people from right wing and left wing movements in all circumstances are also separated. According to the Law of the Execution of Punishment and Security Precautions no 5275 (5275 sayılı Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun), article 113 says that “prisoners are kept in separate rooms, if the material conditions are available, with respect to their crime types and the risk they carry. The people who have hostile relations and who convicted the same crime are not kept in the same room and administration takes precautions to prevent the contact of them with each other.”54. These emphases on the crime type and hostile relations are related with the physical separation of the ordinary prisoners from the political ones and the separation of two hostile organizations. For example, member of Hezbollah cannot accommodate in the cells of Kurdish movement or Turkish Left. Lastly, there is a separation between the Kurdish movement and the revolutionary movement in Turkey with respect to accommodation. In Ankara, İzmir, Kocaeli, Tekirdağ F-types, since these F-types have two apart buildings namely no.1 and no.2., the Kurdish movement stays in F- type prison no.2, the Turkish Left in F-type prison no.1. If the building is single, the cells are also separated.

For the interviews, I received help from one of my friends who is a political lawyer and from my ex-prisoner friends. Then, by dint of those friends I contact with the institutions such as TOHAV (Toplum ve Hukuk Araştırmaları Vakfı - Foundation for Society and Legal Studies), TUAD (Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği - Association for Solidarity with the Families of Prisoners), İHD (İnsan Hakları Derneği – Human Rights Association), ÖHD (Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği - Libertarian Lawyers Association), CİSST (Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarında Sivil Toplum Derneği - , HHB (Halkın Hukuk Bürosu - ), TAYAD (Tutuklu Aileleriyle

54 “Tutuklular, maddi olanaklar elverdiğince suç türlerine ve taşıdıkları güvenlik riskine göre ayrı odalarda barındırılırlar. Aralarında husumet bulunanlar ile iştirak halinde suç işlemiş olanlar aynı odalarda barındırılmazlar ve birbirleri ile temas etmelerini engelleyecek tedbirler alınır.” 75

Yardımlaşma ve Dayanışma Derneği – Association for Solidarity and Cooperation with the Families of Prisoners), TUHAD-FED (Tutuklu Hükümlü Aileleri Hukuk Dayanişma Dernekleri Federasyonu – The Federation of Associations of Law Solidarity and Cooperation with the Families of Prisoners). At the beginning of the field work, my friend who is a political lawyer was attended the interviews in order to make the both part relaxed and to provide confidence between the researcher and the participant.

Certainly, there are similar stories of resistance and struggle practices like political (left) prisoners among the ordinary prisoners or among the detainees from the trials of Hizbullah and Ergenekon. In addition, in such a system it is not easy to differentiate the political and non-political detainees. One of the respondents says that “I cannot say that a person who stole 15 TL is not political”. Everyone in the prison is affected by the same legislation. Although with the help of this study and sample there becomes possibility of having information about the living conditions of nearly 190.000 convicts and detainees, as the old timers of the prisons in Turkey the political prisoners are the essential intended population. Also the definitions aforementioned are clear about the criterion for the identification of a political prisoner. Şaban Öztürk, the writer of “Hapishane Tarihi” (Prison History), puts the political prisoners in a different place with respect to their positioning and management of themselves. He states that

In our recent history, prison takes place in the lives of this or that political movement/school in certain periods, but it takes place in the lives of the left in every period55 (Öztürk, 2004: 6)

The prisons of Turkey with respect to political “crimes” are separated into two parts: Kurdish movement and the revolutionary movement in Turkey (called as Turkish Left). Today, the vast majority of the prisons’ left/political prisoner population is composed of the people who identify themselves as Yurtsever, mainly referencing to the Kurdish movement. So the majority of the respondents are also associated with

55 “Yakın tarihimizde şu ya da bu siyasi ekolün hayatında hapishane belirli dönemlerde yer alırken, solun hayatında her dönem yer almıştır.” 76 this movement. However, I will not mention the respondents’ trial/movement throughout the thesis. It is because the object of the thesis is not to make an analysis of left movement in Turkey. Such an organizational and movement based analysis can change focus of the work.

The data gathered for the thesis is analyzed in the light of qualitative research method. In this thesis the qualitative research is understood as what Denzin and Lincoln articulated:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings and memos of the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003: 3).

Especially, “locating the observer/researcher in the world” and “transforming the world” are important notions which are revolved in this study. Firstly, unlike quantitative method, qualitative inquiry sees the researcher as a subject who thinks, feels, eats, cries, laughs and so on. In fact, s/he is a political being with all his thoughts, feelings, and hopes. “Neutrality” does not mean to be purified from all believes and thoughts and feelings; it is an ethical stand which forbids the manipulation of the results. At the beginning, this type of research locates the researcher into a world of relations which the researcher is a part.

The participants are deliberately selected by the purpose of reflecting the political prisoner population. The sample is not formed to be statistically representative of the political prisoner population as a whole. However, participants are selected according to criterion based/purposive sampling.

I conducted 20 interviews which last in total 26 hours and 18 minutes. During the interviews, I used voice recorder and took notes. Before the interviews, I prepared the questions which are semi-structured and open ended. The questions are in the appendix part.

The choice of the place is mainly left to the interviewees. The interviews were conducted in café or office type places where the interviewees could be more comfortable.

The shortest interview lasted in half an hour; the longest one continued to two and half an hours. Interviews, due to their conversation character, are not merely the recorded ones. In most of the interviews, the conversation continued after the record. Some of the interviewees requested to turn off the recorder in order to talk about things and events which had not wanted to be recorded. Some of the interviews, thus, lasted nearly 5 hours, which were recorded only 1 hour.

Since July I have been corresponded with 5 prisoners from various prisons in Turkey about the subject matter of the thesis. The similar schema of questions is used for the prisoners in correspondence. The material and data they sent used in the analysis part of the thesis. I took permission from them to use these materials in the thesis.

The profiles of the participants from four groups are as follows:

Ex-prisoners profiles: All experienced F-type prisons at least 1 year. 15 years is the longest period of imprisonment among the ex-prisoners. Their trials are varied from Kurdish movement to Turkish left. The interviews did not lose its focus point and the data about everyday life in the prisons gathered in detail.

Families: Interviews were usually emotionally intense. In these conversations, the data about the everyday life practices in tactical sense were not reached. They were generally formed around the human right violations in prisons and the problems of the families as a result of the incarceration of their relatives. Moreover, from the conversations political prisoners’ focus on the outside life in their communication with their families was attracted the attention. The families particularly pointed out that their relatives did not talk about the prison life or about the inside. The subjects of the limited conversations are mostly about the outside and their families’ lives. When I asked the reason of this attitude, one of the participants from the families replied as like that: “when he saw us, he becomes emotional anyway. In order to get through this mood, he asks questions about the outside, about us, not about the 78 inside.”. The other reason could be a pragmatic one that those problems are related with laws and administrations which are the issues of the lawyers.

Lawyers: They are all political lawyers who fundamentally deal with the political trials. The interviews are productive on gathering data about the everyday life and the judicial background of those institutions and imprisonment.

Prisoners: These are the political prisoners who have been inside for 10 years to 22 years. I reached them through the interviewee’s or via some civil societies which deal with the issue of prisons and political prisoners.

There was a list guiding the interview questions. However, the interviews mostly took shape as conversations. Feedback of the participants about the transcripts was not requested. There was an interview schedule however follow-up questions were not in this schedule due to the conversation atmosphere.

Within the questions, I used both content mapping and content mining strategies. In order to learn how they define themselves and the past/future of the prison politics, I tried to ask some provocative questions which raise the political understanding of the issue. For example, “what differs your position from a member of Hezbollah?”; “do you think that the state is successful in its F-type project after 2000?”; “how could you define the position of a political prisoner?” are some of those questions related with the content mapping. The content mining questions, on the other hand, “are designed to explore the detail which lies within each dimension, to access the meaning it holds for the interviewee, and to generate an in-depth understanding from the interviewee’s point of view” (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003: 148). The questions about the architecture of F-types and how it makes feel the prisoners, and the questions related with the details about the everyday life in those places can be counted in the context of content mining.

The interview questions are categorized into three parts with respect to their themes: spatial meaning and architectural design of F-types; identification of being a political prisoner and the meaning of the struggle; everyday life and tactical resistance practices in those places. 79

The first group questions are related with the de Certeau’s distinction between the place (lieu) and space (espace) which is mainly related with the issue of narration. De Certeau describes the place as “the order (of whatever kind) in accord with which elements are distributed in relationships of coexistence. It thus excludes the possibility of two things being in the same location (place). A place is thus an instantaneous configuration of positions. It implies an indication of stability.” (1984: 117) For de Certeau, the place does not include experience and practice. On the other hand, “space is a practiced place”. That is the space is where the operations are taken place with “intersections of mobile elements” (1984: 117). Comparing with place, de Certeau identifies the space as “space is like the word when it is spoken, that is, when it is caught in the ambiguity of an actualization, trans-formed into a term dependent upon many different conventions, situated as the act of a present (or of a time), and modified by the transformations caused by successive contexts. In contradistinction to the place, it has thus none of the univocity or stability of a "proper.” (1984: 117). Borrowing from C. Linde & W. Labov, de Certeau demonstrates two different types of description of place: Map and tour. The former one necessitates the “knowledge of an order of place”. This type of description does not require the practice and experience. It is not related with the issue of memory. However the second type refers to practice of a place, i.e., space. It is a narrative description which recalls memory. In the interviews I asked the questions like “what do you remember from your experience of F-type prisons”; “what does the prison look like as far as you remember?”; “what does F-type prison reminds you?” for the narration of the place. Those questions are to understand how the political prisoners operate in those places and how the space of prison is practices by the prisoners. The participants described the prisons referring to their experiences within the space. Some of them drew the bird’s eye view of F-type prison whilst at the same time described it with their experience.

The second group of questions is related with the self-identification of the prisoners. As the subjects of the operations and practices –and also of the existing study, political prisoners are not the “witnesses” who have to answer questions that the scientist has formulated for them. This is not an experimental study and they are not 80 the “objects” of the study in the true sense of the word. As the insiders, interviewees are the fundamental knowers of the issue. In this very sense, they are not the mere objects but the subjects of the study. Secondly, the power of naming is “exertion of dominion over that thing or person”. In fact this is the matter of representation: how the subject must be represented in such texts. Naming in that sense is a normative problem; i.e. it is an issue of power relations without which we cannot understand how the subjects should be represented. As in Torah, God gave the power of naming to Adam who named all the creatures in the world including woman. This interpellative power of naming constructs the things in the process of naming. This process generates a power relation between the named and the namer. As Butler entitled, this is the injurious word “that not only names a social subject, but constructs that subject in the naming, and constructs that subject through a violating interpellation” (Butler, 1997: 49). According to Butler, “being called a name is also one of the conditions by which a subject is constituted in language” (1997: 2). In this sense, this study by naming the target group rejected to generate such a relation with the object of analysis. The chair is given to this group of people who experience the fact of prison in Turkey. This self-interpellation does not construct a power relation between the researcher and the researched at least. Moreover, in this group of questions, the political prisoners’ relations among themselves, with ordinary and other prisoners and with the administration are examined. It is important because those relations are the descriptive aspects of being a political prisoner.

The last group of questions is generated to draw a picture of everyday life in prisons with focusing on the tactical resistance practices. To begin with, to understand and give a general description of everyday life in prison of the political prisoners, I asked a day of them in those places. According to de Certeau, those practices are the “ways of operating” and tactical in sense. De Certeau states that “dwelling, moving about, speaking, reading, shop-ping, and cooking are activities that seem to correspond to the characteristics of tactical ruses and surprises: clever tricks of the ‘weak’ within the order established by the "strong," an art of putting one over on the adversary on his own turf, hunter's tricks, maneuverable, poly-morph mobilities, jubilant, poetic, and warlike discoveries” (1984: 40). Thus, it helped me to divide and analyze the 81 everyday practices. Also it served to have information about the everyday life in prison which is not familiar for the researcher and many people outside.

As a limited and isolated spaces, prisons make the residents be powerless with respect to everyday life and resistance practices. In that sense, prisoners have to cope with these weak conditions and isolation. Questions of this last group starts with reminding these poor conditions and then continue with the questions about the coping mechanisms of the prisoners: the prison metis. This prison metis is tried to be understood by asking the questions about how the prisoners deal with difficulties practiced in the prisons. Here metis is the tactical practices of the political prisoners in F-types. For de Certeau, “metis is the ‘ultimate weapon,’ the one that gives Zeus supremacy over the other gods. It is a principle of economy: obtain the maximum number of effects from the minimum force.” (1984: 82). Within the answers some keywords are sought for understanding the metis in prisons. These keywords are creative acting, doing tricks, cheating, maneuvering, misleading, making jokes, humor, problem solving, coping with the difficulties within those places, doing things in economic and easy way. These are the key concepts of the reversal economy of the metis: making the weak to use the place of the other for the sake of itself. In the answers of the interviewees, the metis was mostly hidden in the humorous narrations about the prison life and in the narrative about the coping tactics of the prisoners.

3.4.1. “Doing Prison Research” In the prison studies the social methods used are manifold. One of the most prominent ones is the ethnographic studies. In this sub-heading of the study, I will deal with the issue of doing prison research and ethics in prison studies. The first part of this section will be about the ethical dimension of doing prison research. In other words, it will be about the position of the research and researcher. In the second part, doing prison research in Turkey will be discussed.

To begin with, in sensitive issues like the prison researches, the position of the researcher does matter. The dichotomy between the researcher as the authorized

82 knower and the thing that must be analyzed creates a break between these two subjects of the research. Especially in the prison researches, this positioning is really problematic. Because doing prison research as an outsider –outsider in every meaning, in psychological, physical, social and so on- prevents being the real authorized knower. On the other hand, as being from the insider, the participants are the constitutive element of the production of knowledge on the carceral practices. However, it does not attribute a meaning to the participants as the authoritative figure nor to the researcher. This is a work which is produced by both parts. Borrowing from Rabelias, de Certeau points out that “every ‘proper’ place is altered by the mark others have left on it.” (1984: 44). In that respect, the research is/has the mark of the researched. Thus, de Certeau’s metaphor of “broken and anamorphic mirror” is curial to formulate the place of the researcher. He says that “every particular study is a many-faceted mirror (others reappear every-where in this space) reflecting the exchanges, readings, and confrontations that form the conditions of its possibility, but it is a broken and anamorphic mirror (others are fragmented and altered by it)” (1984: 44).

The metaphor of broken mirror also shows the facilitator character of the researcher in the literature on prisons. As a mirror, the researcher reflects the inside and help to both to insiders and outsiders to see the inside from many different angles. For Piche and et al., such a positioning which is the feature of the ethnographic approaches on the studies about imprisonment and punishment is the questioning of “whose side we are on” (2014: 394). They define the role of the researcher as facilitative against the “isolated and silenced voices of dissent and resistance of the imprisoned” (2014: 393).

According to Kvale, two main positions in the in-depth interview can be taken by the researcher in a metaphorical sense: researcher as miner, researcher as traveler. The first metaphor reflects the understanding of data-gathering as like that: “knowledge is understood as buried metal and the interviewer is a miner who unearths the valuable metal (1996: 3). The second one is a constructionist approach in which “knowledge is not given but created. The interviewer is seen as a traveler who

83 journeys with the interviewee. The meanings of the interviewee’s stories are developed as the traveler interprets them.” (1996: 3). According to this style of interviewing, both the researcher and the researched take an active part in the construction of the knowledge. By narrating and reiterating the issue, the researched/interviewee is the subject of the study. Another actor comes in the conversation and interpretation part: the researcher. As an active player in this creation, the researcher generates meaning.

Other than these methodological problems and discussions, there are some extra challenges with doing prison research in Turkey. The first one is the challenges about the researcher’s access to these institutions. The access of the researchers can be via mail. However, this is a difficult way of contacting. Since it takes long time and there is a reluctance of the restrictive institutional review board committees to allow such a research. Moreover doing research by mail has an artefact such as a limited control of the researcher. As Bosworth and et al. stated that method of mailing results that “a limited control a researcher has over the information he or she gathers by revealing just how dependent the researcher is on hoe the participants choose to respond” (2005: 252). Another way of accessing is the face to face meetings and observation of the spatial organization of the prisons. However, this second way is dependent on the permission of the Ministry of Justice and to the authority of prosecution, which is generally not possible. Especially when the issue is the political prisoners, taking permission gets harder.

The second challenge of doing prisons research is about its political character. Literature of prison in Turkey consists of to a large extent memoirs and literary works about those memoirs. Although, last couple of decades has witnessed a considerable interest in these themes within the academia in Turkey, the prison and imprisonment are not popular themes compared to the attention in Europe and the USA. Three main reasons can be counted for this lack of interest in Turkey. Firstly, the themes prison and imprisonment are the political issues. In other words, to choose those themes as a subject of matter is a political choice. In such a geography where the relationship between the politics and academia is constructed through right wing politics and

84 understanding of marketing, such a topic for study would be far better a political choice. Secondly, especially after Operation of Return to Life, many torture events, violations of basic rights and inhuman treatment have taken place in those places. And the prisons as institutions are protected like sacred spaces in order to overlap these torture events and violations. In that sense, the studies which do not take sides with the predominant view and do not approve F-type prisons are not supported and generally blocked. F-type prisons which completed their 15th anniversary still remain unknown. This problem of access affects remarkably the ignorance of the issue. Last reason for the lack of interest about the issue of prison and imprisonment is related with the structural situation of the prisons. As Sykes and Clemmer talked about, prisons are the special institutions which can be defined as “society within a society”. They generate their own languages and social relations. Dealing with such a complicated and closed matter requires relatively more effort and labor.

CHAPTER IV

4. EVERYDAY LIFE AND RESISTANCE

To resist is to create: That is, it means to develop countless experiences which provides to put aside what should be and shift to what must be done56. (Miguel Benesayag & Florence Aubenas)

A landscape without flowers or magnificent woods may be depressing for the passer-by but flowers and trees should not make us forget the earth beneath, which has a secret life and a richness of its own. (Henri Lefebvre)

A painted wall (painted not for you, but for those outside) and a sliding gate (that takes you inside) meet you at the beginning, but not with a welcome. A gendarmerie holding a gun looks at you from the viewing hatch and takes you inside. After some bureaucratic processes, you are in your new “home” with a “welcoming torture” called a strip search. Although you have passed through high technology x-ray machines, an officer touches every single part of your body, including your ass. Resistance just means more beatings. After the strip search, guards called Robocops come for a new session: a “welcoming beating”. When you arrive at your cell comatose (it is a cell in the strictest sense of the word), the guards lock you in. Here, you are alone with a bed, a table and a plastic chair. There is nothing that you have brought from the outside. You lie on the bed, hoping to forget your hunger and trying not to smell the unpleasant odor emanating from the bed, but the airlessness dominates and does not let you sleep, and so you start to move around the cell. No

56 “Direnmek yaratmaktır: Yani olması gerekeni bir yana bırakıp yapılması gerekene geçişi sağlayan sayısız deneyim geliştirmek” 86 more than three steps, and you have to turn back. Again, three steps, and back. This is a cell that is ten square meters. You feel nauseous due to the narrowness of the cell and sit again on the bed and its musty smell. Suddenly you notice a dark object on the window. At first, you cannot make the sense of it. When you close to the window, you notice a bag attached to the end of a mop handle. You open the window and realize that someone from the next cell is stretching out with a mop handle saying, “Take this tea, my friend, it will make you feel good” and adds “by the way, welcome!”

This is a fictional but possible first day experience in an F-type prison, as places with musty smelling beds, barred windows, Robocops and nausea. When observed from outside, the liveliness of everyday life in F-type prisons is not seen due to the negative connotations of the prisons for the outsider. It would appear that there is no routine “normalized” everyday life, but rather creative activities. In this sense, in order to see the liveliness of the prison cells we will try to put the everyday lives of political prisoners in F-type prisons under the microscope to see the mobility and vitality of a cell housing a living being.

F-type prisons are places of incarceration that are based on an isolation model borrowed from Europe and the United States. Their use falls under the regulation entitled the Law on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures, which sets out the principles and means of carrying out a sentence, the responsibilities of personnel, the prohibitions and rules applied inside the institution, and the regulation of everyday life of the prisoners (nourishment, accommodation, etc.)57. F-type prisons treat everyone inside with a rehabilitative/curing approach in accordance with their establishment logic, and this logic permeates every rule and regulation related to prisons, but especially F-type prisons. When dealing with political prisoners, however, these concepts of “rehabilitation” and “treatment” have undertaken political meanings more than they had before. This attitude is not accepted by the prisoners, however administrators approach the issue with this logic in the majority

57 Retrieved from: http://www.cte.adalet.gov.tr/ 87 of applications. Although the management of F-types is regulated by a single regulation entitled the Law on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures, some variations exist in how these types of prisons are administrated, leading to some differences in applications among F-types. This prison type features single or triple- occupation cells, which were introduced in 1991 under the Law for the Struggle against Terrorism. These new cell units, referred to as “rooms” by the state, replaced the dormitory/ward system, which was based on collective confinement in everyday life. With random cell searches, confiscations of personnel belongings, limitations on visits and some other prohibitions, the cells become places in which the “means of collective action were severely curtailed” (Bargu, 2010: 249). The weak position of political prisoners comes from these bad conditions and the restrictions on their political identity. As de Certeau highlights, weak does not mean “being passive and guided by established rules” (1984: xii). In a sense, the establishment of F-type prisons is an intervention into the everyday lives of political prisoners, who can be considered their prime target. This is elucidated by the Prime Minister after the Operation in 2000:

These prisons will put a stop to a nest of terrorists. […] It is important that one of the largest and most important nests of terrorists has been dismantled. This is an important achievement. This is a way of rescuing terrorists from their own terrorism. We want to rescue Turkey from the dormitory system. The need for of F-types, I think, can be perceived by people from every walk of life58 (as cited in Sevimli, 2010: 145).

A report presented to the Assembly in January 2000 states that “some organizations gained dominance over the prisons, and searches became impossible”59 (as cited in Sevimli, 2010: 44). This indicates that the state were unhesitant in declaring the target of the Operation and the aim of F-types. The collective lives of political prisoners in

58 “Bu cezaevleri terörist yuvası olmaktan kurtulacaktır. […] Önemli olan çok büyük, çok önemli bir terörist yuvası ve yuvaları ortadan kaldırılmış oluyor. Bu önemli bir başarıdır. Bu mücadele teröristleri kendi terörizmlerinden koruma ve kurtarma biçimidir. Biz koğuş sisteminden Türkiye’yi kurtarmak istiyoruz. F tipinin gerekliliğini artık toplumun sanırım hemen her kesimi algılar duruma gelmiştir”.

59 “cezaevlerinin bazı örgütlerin eline geçtiği ve arama yapılmadığı” 88 the dormitory system was seen as a breeding ground for the recruitment of terrorists that had to be removed using the military force of the state.

The response of the political prisoners to this new model of incarceration during and after the Operation was to see it as an attack on political thinking and activity, but was different in practice. Some political organizations refused to accept the regulation/rule of F-types at the beginning and went on year-long death fasts, while others criticized the model, but did not participate in the death fasts and other protests. This had an effect on the daily practices of the prisoners, and forced variations in the practices of political organizations concerning their coping mechanisms.

This particular analysis makes no pretentions to cover all of the approaches and daily practices of all political organizations in F-type prisons, and the analysis presented here will also not be a statistical representation of the whole universe of the scope of the subject, but it does give evidence about the daily lives of prisoners in a tactical sense. For the purpose of the study, I conducted at least one representative interview with representatives of the major political organizations in F-type prisons. This particular research claims that the everyday practices of political prisoners are tactical in essence. The coping mechanism of the prisoners leads them to make use of what is given to them, and to transform the conditions in which they are held as best they can to maximize their benefit. In this sense, while looking at the history of F-types, it is necessary not to “forget the earth beneath, which has a secret life and richness of its own”.

But how can these practices be studied, and what is the role of critical thinking in uncovering these distinct practices of resistance? The role of theoretical thinking here is to reveal weaknesses in the power and vulnerability of these practices, as there are certainly weak points and conditions in its application and practice. This understanding resembles the argument put forward by Lefebvre argument on the relationship between critical thinking and the state in Towards a Meta-Philosophy of Daily Life, in which he says that:

The role of critical thinking consists here in demonstrating the mortal character of the state: it bears within it the conditions of its own death and, what is more, it leads to death. Once we have proved this, a choice, a bifurcation, seems unavoidable. Either we attempt to go beyond the level of the state, adopting as a practical and intellectual hypothesis its rupture or dissolution; or we seek to install ourselves in the actual, circumventing and diverting the pressure, if necessary using it to motivate micro-decisions. Is the latter option feasible? (2006: 132)

Within the scope of this work, it is possible to install oneself in the space of power by using its own mechanisms, as discussed in the above quote, in that everyday life itself provides such an opportunity. It can be said that the everyday life is the condition of such a possibility, and has the power to realize this hypothesis. Lefebvre, in the Critique of Everyday Life Vol.1, says that “the most extraordinary things are also the most everyday; the strangest things are often the most trivial; and the current notion of the ‘mythical’ is an illusory rejection of this fact (1958: 19). Everyday life is where the extraordinary, strange and the trivial one merge, and thus allows action to be taken to realize the hypothesis.

The responses of the interviewees concentrate on some of the daily activities in the prisons, which form the sub-headings of this part of the thesis. This categorization helps to provide a general overview of everyday life in prisons. This research will put forward a schema of action that will call forth models of action of the political prisoners under their limited conditions. “Everyday life invents itself by poaching in countless ways on the property of others” (de Certeau, 1984: xii). In this section, we will deal with the main elements of these “countless ways”, which will be discussed under these categories in de Certeauian terms.

The production in the everyday life eludes the theory, since according to de Certeau “the latter [consumer production] is devious, it is dispersed, but it insinuates itself everywhere, silently and almost invisibly, because it does not manifest itself through its own products, but rather through its ways of using the products imposed by a dominant economic order”(1984: xiii). Hence how can the things “beneath the earth” that are silent and invisible be brought to the light by the results of the fieldwork? In this respect, the fieldwork will help clarify these the ways of operating within F-type prisons. As stated in the epigraph, the resistance practices in those places are 90 produced by countless experiences. To begin with, the interview questions will be held, after which, the conceptual tools that are used in the analysis will be discussed.

The interview questions are posed to the respondents under three sections: The first section relates to the architecture of F-type prisons, which allow an understanding of the facilities in a physical sense. As a product of that part of the questions, I drew the plan of F-type prisons and some views of the cells and exercise yards. The respondents were asked detailed questions about the architecture of F-types prisons, and many of them provided answers in the form of drawings, which were then used to compile a plan of an F-type prison. This allowed an understanding of the conditions within F-type prisons to those outside, and also to sense the tactical way of the practices. The second section deals mainly with the political prisoners’ understanding of their struggle, and the meaning they gave to their status as a political prisoner. The responses to these questions helped in the differentiation of the strategic practices and the tactical resistance activities of the prisoners with political identities in the domain of a fertile everyday life. Primary focus was on the definition of F-type prisons, and whether the respondents see the transition to F-type prisons as a failure or a success. The perception of F-type prisons among political prisoners helps to provide an understanding of their approach to the tactical practices. Continuing to see F-type prisons as a place of resistance rather than a failure indicates that “there are many things that we can do also in those places.”60. The final section of questions focuses on the tactical resistance activities of the prisoners, in which the main concepts are “creativity, productivity, humor, coping mechanisms, creative solutions, tricking, comic memories and undermining”. In this section, the respondents were asked at the outset to explain an ordinary day while incarcerated in such a place, and a general plan of a day in the life of a political prisoner is derived from the responses.

Before making an analysis of the everyday resistance activities, it is necessary to identify what “everyday” means to a prisoner. Firstly, it is apparent that the everyday life of a political prisoner is very different from that of an ordinary inmate, and this

60 “…burada da yapacağımız çok şey var”. 91 is crucial for pointing out that everyday resistance activities of the political prisoners are not representative of general prison life. However, since the political prisoners are part of the these places, it is the reality of the prisons of Turkey, especially F-type prisons. Although some practices are appropriated by ordinary inmates, they do not shape their everyday lives in the same way as political prisoners, based both on their status in front of the administration, and the fact that they do not take responsibility for such practices. Many of the activities presented below will earn then perpetrator severe punishments if caught by the administration. Furthermore, there is little difference among the worldviews of the political prisoners and their lifestyles. They organize their daily lives according to their politics and worldviews, as was confirmed by all of the participants in the field study. The ex-prisoners that I told said that as long as the guard or administrator is not brutal, political prisoners are treated with “sincere respect”, which according to the ex-prisoners interviewed, is based on their respectable lifestyles and stance.

It is the routinized everyday behaviors that shape the position of political prisoners in the power relations. A classical day of a political prisoner61 starts early in the morning, at 6:00 or 07:00 a.m. One of the benefits enjoyed by political prisoners is that they can take off their pyjamas, sweatshirts and slippers and wear daily clothes like jeans and shirts. They do not welcome the guards within their beds with their pyjamas. The door to the exercise yard opens at 8:00 a.m., but before this, the inmates eat breakfast and a roll-call is carried out. After the doors open, those who want to exercise or get fresh air go outside, while those who want to do other things, such as writing letters or reading, stay inside. These activities continue for two or three hours until lunch is served, after which they return to their morning activities. The doors are closed, and the evening roll call is taken, after which everyone again returns to their daily reading and writing activities. Prisoners generally refer to the hours of 10:00-12:00 a.m., 14:00-18:00 p.m. and 20:00-00.00 p.m., as “silence time”, when they can carry out their daily business. They usually watch the news and discussion

61 See the table at the Appendix-9. 92 programs, films and documentaries (on television), and some sports programs, and generally go to bed at 10-11:00 p.m., unless there is a special program.

After being informed of their daily schedule, I assigned the daily practices into categories that made it easier to understand the daily lives of the political prisoners, and these categories constitute the sub-headings of the analysis. Under each category, an attempt will be made to understand the tactical practices of the respondents using data acquired during the field research. The qualitative research method adopted in the study makes use of important narratives and statements made by the respondents, which were translated by the researcher in such a way that the implied meaning was not lost.

Within the scope of the thesis, the everyday resistance activities of the political prisoners is attempted to be understood as a form of tactical resistance, as another social aspect, that differs from the more common resistance practices known as “classical physical resistance”. So what conceptual framework should be adopted be to define such practices in these incarceration facilities? This study draws upon the definition of tactic proposed by de Certeau that he mentions frequently in the Practice of the Everyday Life. A tactic, in de Certeau’s words, is

a calculus which cannot count on a ‘proper’ (a spatial or institutional localization), nor thus on a border-line distinguishing the other as a visible62 totality. The place of a tactic belongs to the other.63 A tactic insinuates itself into the other's place, fragmentarily, without taking it over in its entirety, without being able to keep it at a distance. (1984: xix).

is a production, a poiesis – but a hidden64 one, because it is scattered over areas defined and occupied by systems of ‘production’ (television, urban development, commerce, etc.), and because the steadily increasing expansion of these systems

62 Emphasis mine.

63 Emphasis mine.

64 Emphasis mine. 93

no longer leave “consumers” any place in which they can indicate what they make or do with the products of these systems.65 (1984: xii)

… clever tricks, knowing how to get away with things, “hunter's cunning,” maneuvers, polymorphic simulations, joyful discoveries, poetic as well as warlike. (1984: xix).

[that] go[es] much further back, to the immemorial intelligence displayed in the tricks and imitations of plants and fishes. From the depths of the ocean to the streets of modern megalopolises … (1984: xx)

creat[ing] … a space in which [one] can find ways of using the constraining order of the place or of the language. Without leaving the place where [there is] no choice but to live and which lays down its law for [one], [one] establishes within it a degree of plurality and creativity. By an art of being in between, [one] draws unexpected results from [ones’s own] situation66 (1984: 30)

characterized by its ruses, its fragmentation (the result of the circumstances), its poaching, its clandestine nature, its tireless but quiet activity, in short by its quasi- invisibility67, since it shows itself not in its own products (where would it place them?) but in an art of using those imposed on it68. (1984: 31)

Unlike the conventional understanding of the resistance, everyday resistance draws its strength from being in the place of other, invisibility, tricking and creativity- production, as can be understood from de Certeau’s statements above. We can start to scrutinize these features of tactics, one-by-one.

The first feature of a tactic is connected with the issue of space. According to de Certeau, being in the place of other is the determining aspect of this practice type. In other words, most the prominent difference between the strategy and the tactic is the usage of the space. Strategies necessitate a “place that can be circumscribed as proper (propre) and thus serve as the basis for generating relations with an exterior distinct

65 Emphasis mine.

66 Emphasis mine.

67 Emphasis mine.

68 Emphasis mine. 94 from it” (xix). On the other hand, the tactic is the lack of this space, as in the sense of property. It means to be in the place of other. To paraphrase de Certeau, the tactic “insinuates itself into the other’s place, fragmentarily, without taking it over in its entirety, without being able to keep it at a distance” (1984: xix). Muratyan defines the tactic and the strategy within the survival tactics of Armenians in Turkey as follows: “Strategy is the control mechanism which determines how to live; tactics, in short, offer means of existing within the present strategies”69 (Muratyan, 2011: 1). These definitions signal an important difference between de Certeau’s concepts. For him, a strategy determines the borders of the area of control, and so in order to develop a control mechanism, one has to specify what to control and the degree of control (to what point the control mechanism will extend). In contrast, for tactics, the borders are not determining aspects, since they exist within these borders. In fact, tactics blur the borders, reducing them to absurdity.

Within the place of F-type prisons, political prisoners exist in the place of the other, in the proper meaning of the word. Due to their political identity, their conditions become worse, and so the everyday life activities of political prisoners fall under the category of tactical resistance, which makes F-type prisons livable places.

The invisibility of a tactic is based mainly on de Certeau’s understanding of the concept of consumption, and related with this, on a discipline mechanism. According to de Certeau, it can be said that “the grid of ‘discipline’ is everywhere becoming clearer and more extensive” (1984: xiv), and this makes individuals become more and more subjugated to the power mechanisms. Hereto, the theories led by Foucault in particular place emphasis on “how the violence of order is transmuted into a disciplinary technology” (xiv), although de Certeau raises concerns of “a new and different set of problems”, i.e. the general direction of his work is to discover how individuals operate as the consumers of the system, with focus on how they “manipulate the mechanisms of discipline and conform to them” (xiv). Individuals living under the disciplinary power mechanism manipulate the system through their

69 “Strateji nasıl yaşanacağını belirleyen bir kontrol mekanizmasıdır; taktikler ise mevcut stratejinin içinde var olma yollarının her biridir.” 95 acts of consumption, as this will prevent them from becoming a target of the system, being consumers of what the system produces. That said, at the same time they can consume and transform The things that are produced for them for their own benefit. This production by the consumer here is not seen by the system, in that it takes place in the place of other, along with its products and tools. Practices from the outside appear to be simple consumption, but from the side of the users it becomes production. For de Certeau, this is the “art of using what is imposed on it”, and this art makes itself explicit in the “fertile humus” of everyday life, as the ideal domain for invisibility. The best example of this invisibility of a tactic can be seen in the illegal usage of electricity in F-type prisons. Dengtav is related to a prisoner who has so far served 21 years of his sentence. His relative inside the prison established an illegal electricity connection that had not been noticed by the administration, but one day a bill came to Dengtav’s house stating that his relative owed the state around 60,000 TL (Turkish Liras). They learnt what had happened from a friend of their relative inside, whose statements points out how the prisoners invisibly transform the poor conditions to their benefit:

One of the friends of my uncle from his room was evacuated. […] I asked the issue. He laughed and said that of course your uncle says like that. He said if I were the state I would send a bill not for 60,000, but for 200,000. I asked why, and he said ‘your uncle made an illegal electricity connection in the prison’. When he said this, I was shocked. How can he do that, it is not possible. […] it is not possible because of physics. I mean, you are in prison, you are being watched all the time. How can this be? […] Actually, this is making fun of the administration by saying ‘okay, you incarcerated me (laughing), I am entering up to your vessels (laughing). Can you imagine (laughing)? I am using your facilities when I want without your knowledge. I mean, by doing this, you cannot incarcerate me!70

70 “Sonra yıllar sonra amcamla aynı şeyde odada kalan bi arkadaşı cezasını tamamlayıp çıktı. […] Nedir bu mesele falan. O da güldü, tabi amcan öyle der dedi. Sonra dedi ben devletin yerinde olsam 60 milyar değil 200 milyar ceza gönderirim. Ben niye falan dedim ya dedi kaçak elektrik bağladı amcan cezaevinde. Şimdi böyle bişey söyleyince tabi ben şok oldum. Nasıl kaçak elektrik bağlar yani mümkün değil. […] fiziken mümkün değil. Yani cezaevindesiniz her an kontrol ediliyosunuz. Nasıl böyle bişey olabilir. […] Bu aslında yönetimle dalga geçme yani tamam sen beni kapatıyosun ama (gülüyor) ben senin damarına kadar giriyorum yani (gülüyor). Düşünebiliyo musun yani (gülüyor). Ben içerde bile istediğim zaman senin imkânlarını senden habersiz kullanıyorum. Yani beni nereye hapsediyosun!” 96

The emphasis on the hidden nature of the act is clear in the example. Dengtav uses the term “up to your vessels” in order indicate that prisoners can move invisibly, but at the same time reach the very inside of the system. The word “vessels” also indicates the capillary power but from the point of view of the resistance. Here is the resisting part who reaches to the capillaries of the system rather than vice versa. Plus, “using the facilities without the knowledge of the administration” adumbrates the hidden nature of the act, which was interpreted by Dengtav as making fun of the administration. This brings us to the third feature of the tactic: tricking.

Tricking, as a tactical feature is related to both “joyful discoveries” and making fun of the other (the other being whose place you are in) on the one hand, and also “knowing how to get away with things through “hunter's cunning, maneuvers” (xix) on the other. This is known as metis, referring to a form of intelligence. Referencing Vernant and Detienne, de Certeau describes this form as “always ‘immersed in practice’ and which combines “flair, sagacity, foresight, intellectual flexibility, deception, resourcefulness, vigilant watchfulness, a sense for opportunities, diverse sorts of cleverness, and a great deal of acquired experience”. (81)

The fieldwork is full of cases showing signs of cleverness and intelligence. All the illustrations under the everyday practice category can be considered examples of metis. To clarify the sense of the term, some of the answers given by Ali when asked about their relationship with the prison administration will be provided here.:

You certainly find something. The prison makes you learn this. You know, when you give up what will happen. Thus, if there is a problem, you start to think about what you can do, how you can get round the situation. […] You make a move, they also make a move. So you have to be agile, you have to use your wits. Do not be naïve, look around, you must predict. You have to be better than them in order not to let them bring you down. […] It is like that; he [the administration] knows that he cannot change my position by applying pressure. He knows that I will surely do something against him. His aim is to limit, but in the end you do something (laughing)71.

71 “Mutlaka bişey buluyorsun yani. Hapishane bunu sana öğretiyor. Hani pes edersen olacakları biliyosun. İşte o sebep, sorun mu var, hemen başlıyorsun düşünmeye, işte nasıl yaparım, nasıl sıyrılırız bundan. […] Sen hamle yapıyosun, o da yapacak. O yüzden atik olman lazım, kafanı çalıştırman lazım. Saf olmıcan, bakıcan yani, yönetimden ilerisini görcen. Ondan daha iyi olmak zorundasın ki 97

Another prisoner, Deniz, answering the question of what they will do “if they put all of you to the single cells in the future” with the following statement:

Okay, let them to put us in those places. What will happen? Nothing will be different for us. We will find something, nevertheless. I mean there is a limit to it. They say do not communicate. What will they do? Will they ban plastic bottles? Or water? They say they can put you in those places. Okay, come and do it. Don’t we have a mind? We will find something, and they know that. Why do they not do it? Because they know.72

The last feature of the applied tactics relates to the ways of using the mind, with creativity being the “art of using those imposed on it”. As a way of consuming in a de Certeauian sense, tactics can be considered practices aimed at transforming what one has to hand that is presented by the system to her/him. That said, the consumers here do not consume just consume and remove what was given to them. Consuming, in de Certeau terms, is creative production, since what is given by the system is turned into something different to what it was before. This takes the form of “making or using the products of these systems”. Under the aforementioned conditions, the practices of political prisoners are necessarily creative. As can be seen in the analysis section under the categories of everyday life practices, in all their activities, they have to turn something into another thing in order to improve their conditions. There is a need to survive in these places without loss of political identity. One of the ex- prisoners, Günay, speaking on this issue of creativity and making do with something from what is imposed, said “for example, transformation, or making things by transforming, was a common practice”73.

gelip seni devirmesin. […] Çünkü böyledir yani hani beni o anlamda biraz sıkarak işte bir pozisyon değişikliği yapılamayacağını biliyor. Mutlaka karşısına bir şey yapacağımı biliyor. Sınırlamaktır amacı. Ama mesela senin de elin armut toplamıyor, yapıyosun bişeyler (gülüyor).”

72 “Tamam, koysun. Nolacak? Bizim için değişen bişey yok. Yine buluruz bişey. Yani şimdi bunun da bir sınırı var. İşte haberleşmeyin diyor. Ne yapacak? Pet şişeyi mi yasaklıcak? Suyu mu yasaklıcak? İşte seni oraya koyarım diyor. Tamam, gel koy bakalım. Bizim aklımız şeyimiz yok mu, bulacaz bişey. O da biliyor bunu. Neden yapmıyor? Biliyor çünkü.”

73 “Mesela dönüşüm çok hani bişeyleri dönüştürerek yapma çok hakim bişeydi.” 98

In order to better grasp the features of the concept, the thesis is supplemented with 20 individual interviews which have conversation atmosphere. You can see the list of collected interviews and correspondings with pseudonyms used to ensure anonymity:

1. Arin, Family, Interview 2. Roza, Family, Interview 3. Toprak, Ex-prisoner, Lawyer, Interview 4. Azad, Lawyer, Interview 5. Ali, Ex-prisoner, Lawyer, Interview 6. Dengtav, Family, Lawyer, Interview 7. Rüzgâr, Lawyer, Interview 8. Viyan, Lawyer, Interview 9. Barış, Ex-prisoner, Lawyer, Interview 10. Taylan, Lawyer, Interview 11. Özgür, Ex-prisoner, Interview 12. Mazlum, Family, Interview 13. Kemal, Family, Interview 14. Haki, Family, Interview 15. Delal, Family, Interview 16. Rumed, Ex-prisoner, Interview 17. Güneş, Ex-prisoner, Interview 18. Deniz, Ex-prisoner, Interview 19. Günay, Ex-prisoner, Interview 20. Gökçe, Family, Interview 21. Umut, Ex-prisoner, Interview 22. Suphi Nejat, Ex-prisoner, Interview 23. Şafak, Prisoner, Corresponding 24. Ethem, Prisoner, Corresponding 25. Berkin, Prisoner, Corresponding 26. Nazım, Prisoner, Corresponding 27. Can, Prisoner, Corresponding74

The statements made by the respondents are translated word-for-word from transcriptions. They are the voices of the prisoners, who put forward “a texture of true and living voices that gives density to ordinary speech” (1990: 163).

74 See Appendix-10 for detailed interviewee profiles. 99

4.2. Tactics in F-type Prisons This section of the thesis describes six categories of everyday life practices of the prisoners, being Reading, Doing Sports, Drawing/Painting, Communication, Cooking and Beverages, and lastly Handcrafts, with the Communication part divided into four further sub-headings. The chapter concludes with a summary of the major features of the tactic concept.

4.2.1. Reading The practice of reading, for de Certeau, is essentially tactical. Generally seen as a passive act in the context of consumption, reading can be considered silent production, however the tactical aspect of reading comes from its feature of transformation of the text. In other words, the practice of reading is, in essence, a re- writing of the text by the reader. The reader, as a user, produces a new world from the words of the writer. In de Certeau’s terms:

In reality, the activity of reading has on the contrary all the characteristics of a silent production: the drift across the page, the meta-morphosis of the text effected by the wandering eyes of the reader, the improvisation and expectation of meanings inferred from a few words, leaps over written spaces in an ephemeral dance. […] Words become the outlet or product of silent histories. The readable transforms itself into the memorable. (1984: xxi)

This new world is a result of the “ruse, metaphor, arrangement” of the memory (de Certeau, sy, 57). The words in the text, according to de Certeau, transform the text into a habitable place, like a “rented apartment”. In the practice of reading it is easier to see the tactical part of the act, in that reading is the embodiment of tactical practices based on its transformative and invisible power.

Within the place of the lawmaker, with their rules and facilities, the practice of reading puts forward its own rules. This is the “subtle art of ‘renters’ who know how to insinuate their countless differences into the dominant text” (1984: xxi). This “know how” is knowledge that goes back further to the survival practices of the fish and plants that de Certeau talks about. The practice of reading, which is deprived of

100 a ground on which it can stand is a form of production with huge transformative capacity, with words being the raw material of this production and the meaning being the product. Just as the real value of labor is not known in production in an economic sense, for the practice of reading, it is not possible to measure the contribution and effect of the reader. Here, a productive consumption is taking place. The reader consumes the meaning of the text through the words penned by the author, but not always in the way the author planned, in that the consumer of the text produces new meanings within the place of the author. The reader is the tenant of the text who turns a flat into a home, however the proprietors, i.e. the text writers, authors, are blind to this creativity, and they have no choice but to accept the power of the reader.

This tactical production is an everyday practice that is appropriated by the political prisoners. The practice of reading ranks first among all other activities in the prisons, with all interviewees, without exception, identifying prison as a place of reading.

Within the context of the reading activity, the first tactical practice will be publications that are not counted as “dangerous” or “inconvenient” by the administration, and so are allowed. Article 62, related to Periodicals and Non- periodicals, in the Law on Execution of Penalties and Security Measures, states:

Article 62 - (1) Provided that it has been not banned, convicts have the right to access periodicals and non-periodicals by paying the price for them.

(2) Newspapers, books and printed publications published by public organizations, universities, professional organizations with public institution status and tax-except foundations (provided that it has not been banned) and public interest associations are given to convicts without payment and freely. Textbooks shall not be subject to control for those continuing their education.

(3) Any publication including unseemly news, texts, photographs and comments that may jeopardize the security of the institution are not given to the convicts.

As can be seen, the wording of Article 62 makes it open to interpretation, and this ambivalence can be used by the administration in different conjunctures and situations. For example, there is no clear definition of “jeopardizing the security of the institution”, and the administrators can use this flexibility against to the prisoners.

101

However, in the face of such prohibitions and the possibility of misappropriation of the law, political prisoners develop creative practices.

The first tactic of political prisoners to be addressed here is the act of political and organizational documents and books inside “allowed” publications. As stated above, this everyday practice constitutes a significant share of their habitual practices. Since they describe themselves as members of an organization or group, they make requests for materials related to those organizations and groups, which are mostly forbidden. To overcome this problem, with the help of sympathetic printing houses, political and organizational texts are placed into “allowed ones”. For example, inside a known book like “Crime and Punishment”, the original test after page 40, for example, is replaced with organizational texts. Özgür states:

You know, they read mail line-by-line, and cross out what they consider “risky” or anything they do not like. They do this for certain books too, although they do not cross out, but just do not allow. Some journals are not allowed in prison since they are considered “dangerous”. Then let’s put them into the known ones! Inside the book, what we want must be written [laughing]. To do this of course is costly, but in certain situations it is needed. As far as I know, they have still not noticed this method. They do not read all the books from beginning to end. If it is a known and permitted book, they check that nothing is underlined and that it contains nothing written in code. Then they pass it to us. They cannot compete with us on the issue of books anyway. Maybe you have been seen, with books in forgotten nooks and crannies, we unconsciously established a library (laughing).75

This method of circumventing the bans which is not preferred every time is a tactical approach to resolving the difficulties associated with banned publications. Although this method requires outside help (from publishing houses), it belongs to the prison and prisoners in the sense of consumption and the form of usage. In essence, it is tactical. Within the framework of the administration of the prison, the political

75 “Şimdi şöyle biliyorsun mektuplarını satır satır okuyorlar, hatta beğenmedikleri tırnak içinde sakıncalı gördüklerini çiziyorlar. Bunu bazı kitaplar içinde yapıyorlar. Yani çizmiyorlar da işte yasaklı kitaplar mesela sokamıyorsun. Bazı dergileri keyfi bi şekilde içinde tehlikeli şeyler yazıyomuş diye vermiyor. E madem öyle bilindik kitap sokalım o zaman! Ama içinde bizim istediğimiz yazsın (gülüyor). Bu tabi maliyetli bişey. Ama işte bazı durumlarda gerekiyor. Şimdiye kadar benim bildiğim farketmediler. Sonuçta oturup bütün kitapları baştan sona okumuyor. Bilindik ve izinli bir kitapsa, altı çizili var mı, bir şifreleme yapılmış mı felan diye bakıp geçiyordur. Zaten kitap konusunda bizimle baş edemez. Görmüşsündür, sırf kenardaki kitaplarımızı dışarı gönderdik kütüphaneye yardım diye, kendisi kütüphane olmuş (gülüyor)” 102 prisoners reduce the meaning of the rule, not by touching the rule itself, but by sneaking into this frame and tangling the rule. As specified, there is nothing about ruling out, only the sending-receiving of a book, which is allowed. The committee does its job and control the book, however there is a cleverness in identifying the weak point of the power in its own place. As de Certeau stated, there is a poaching situation. In the place of power that is managed in accordance with the rules, the political prisoners read banned books inside permitted publications while still under the supervision of the administration.

Another tactical practice about the reading is how visual and audio media are turned into productive activities in a de Certeauian sense by the prisoners. Prison administrators, in the name of treatment and rehabilitation, limit access to television, with the number of channels and which channels will be allowed differing from prison to prison, ranging from 11 to 21. The permitted channels are from mainstream media, with a strict ban applied to dissident press. Article 67, covering the Right to Benefit from Radio and Television Broadcasting and Internet Utility in the Law on Execution of Penalties and Security Measures, states:

Article 67 - (1) The convict has the right to access radio and television broadcasting if a central broadcasting service is available.

(2) In institutions where there is no central broadcasting service, the convicts can watch and listen to television and radio using an unbound aerial, with precautions taken to ensure watching and listening non-advantageous broadcasts is not possible. Such devices are to be bought by the institution on the condition that they are paid for by the convict. On no account may radios, televisions and computers brought from the outside be accepted into the institutions.

(3) If required by the treatment and rehabilitation programs, convicts may access the Internet under observation. Convicts may not have computers in their rooms. Subject to the approval of the Ministry of Justice, computers will be permitted in institutions for education and cultural purposes.

(4) These rights may be restricted for the convicts who are the high-risk prisoners or are members of an (political) organization.

As can be seen from the descriptions above, which channels are classified as dangerous and who can watch which channels is determined by the administrations.

103

The final sub-article reveals the objects of these prohibitions and restraints. “…convicts who are the high-risk prisoners or are members of an (political) organization” refers directly to political prisoners. These prohibitions and restrictions are transformed creatively by the political prisoners to their benefit. This issue involving a transformation of conditions is discussed by Berkin, with whom I corresponded for the thesis:

The identification of F-type prisons as places of isolation is not just because they are composed of single or three-man cells, but also because of the limits applied to communication between friends and with other people. [The administration] block the mail sent to prisoners; some newspapers are not given to us under the pretext that “it has not arrived at the dealer”; there are limitations on TV channels, with the allowed ones being partisan channels of the government. These are all part of the isolation. Political prisoners, through their creativity, invalidate the isolation.76

This invalidation of an incarceration model necessitates a complex means of dealing with the system. It is claimed in the above statement that prisoners can creatively transform poor conditions for their own benefit. In other words, deconstructing the statement of de Certeau, it can be said that the network of anti-discipline is established out of the procedures and ruses of the political prisoners77. The transformation process is explained by Toprak in more detailed way:

They [administration] gave us 21 channels […] we took them. All of them are channels that they want […] Show, Star, Kanal D. We demanded IMC TV for years, but they would not give it. Yet we would not miss the news, as in the end, we have to be up to date, even though it is from the mouth of the enemy. It [the channel] looks at the things outside its own window. You filter what it says [the channel], that is, you extrapolate from it. Normally we do not like to watch the ads, but sometimes, when the prohibitions are heavy or they make trouble about giving

76 “F tiplerinin tecrit olarak tanımlanması sadece tek ve üç kişilik hücrelerden oluştuğu için değildir. Aynı zamanda, birey ile arkadaşlarının birbirini görmemesi, kimseyle iletişim içine girmemesi, gelen bir mektubun kendisine verilmemesi, gelen gazetelerin “bayiye gelmemiş” denilerek verilmemesi, bazı TV kanallarıyla sınırlı kalınması yani verilmesi –ki bu kanallar iktidarın güdümünde olan yandaş kanallardır- […] de bir tecrit uygulamasıdır. Buna karşı ise siyasi tutsaklar yaratıcılıklarıyla tecridi boşa çıkarırlar.”

77 The original statement is as follows: “Pushed to their ideal limits, these procedures and ruses of consumers compose the network of an anti-discipline.” (1984: xv) 104

newspapers, my friends and I would watch the ads. We would extract something from those ads; we would talk about them, and analyze and interpret them. 78

This is an example of what de Certeau calls “consumer production”, which, he claims, is decentralized and invisible, and uses intelligence to transform the products of the system that are given to the consumers for different purposes. In this example, within the framework of rehabilitation and treatment, the state, through the prison administration, imposes “soft” channels on the prisoners. In a sense, this is an intervention into the everyday lives of political prisoners, and in this way, the state hopes to have a transformative effect on the political prisoners and to impose the state’s understating about certain issues. In de Certeau’s words, the implicit aim is “to inform the population, that is, to ‘give form’ to social practices” (1984: 166). From the perspective of the prisoners, however, the programs and broadcasts of those channels are generally in opposition to their politics and lifestyles. That said, this is of course an opportunity for the prisoners, who have scarce resources, to obtain information from outside, especially in a visual sense, and in this regard, political prisoners take advantage of this opportunity to remain informed about many aspects of the outside world. Speaking about the opportunities provided by visual media, de Certeau states:

The analysis of the images broadcast by television (representation) and of the time spent watching television (behavior) should be complemented by a study of what the cultural consumer “makes” or “does” during this time and with these images. (xii)

The prisoners, as consumers of the meanings given in the broadcasts, misuse the images by filtering and extracting something other than the imposed meaning. Using the meanings they filter and extract from those images, the prisoners create a new agenda for themselves that ties in with their ideological framework. What the system

78 “Bize 21 kanal vermişler. Yani onu da biz almışız ha. Hepsi de onların istedikleri kanallar. İşte Show’u Star’ı Kanal D’si falan. İMC TV’yi istedik yıllarca vermediler. Ama ona rağmen haberleri kaçırmıyorduk. Sonuçta düşmanın ağzından da olsa gündemi takip etmen lazım. O anlatıyor kendi şeysinden, kendi penceresinden. Sen onun anlattığını süzüyosun, anlamlar çıkarıyosun. İşte normalde reklam izlemeyi sevmeyiz ama bazı zamanlar oluyordu ki. Bu kısıtlamaların yoğun olduğu, işte gastelerde felan sorun çıkardıklarında. Arkadaşlar reklamları da izlerdi. Ordan bile bişey çıkarırdık, konuşurduk yani, bi yorum, bi analiz.” 105 tries to prevent is crafted by the prisoners within its place and with its tools. This is the “art of practice” in a de Certeauian sense, which is exercised by the prisoners in tricky and invisible way. This form of production is similar to the example given by de Certeau about the making of the immigrant worker who is confronted by images on television. Comparing the worker with the ordinary citizen in France, de Certeau suggests that the worker surely draws a different meaning from the images due to her/his “inferior access to information, financial means, and compensations of all kinds”. Accordingly, he must “elicit an increased deviousness, fantasy, or laughter” (xvii).

The system of products effects within the consumer grid, and the various kinds of room to maneuver left for consumers by the situations in which they exercise their ‘art’. (xvii)

In our example, the issue is not that the prisoners choose not to enter “the gardens of art”. This is an imposed situation for them not to benefit from the facilities of reading, exercise, etc. However, like the consumers in a de Certeauian sense, the prisoners are not the ones who are passive and guided by what is given to them. De Certeau makes an analogy with the activities of sheep and the practice of grazing. He criticizes the classical understanding of the usage of means in the media that claims that “consumers settle down, the media keeps on the move. The only freedom supposed to be left to the masses is that of grazing” (165-166). For him, the consumer is not the one who just takes what the media imposes, but is rather a producer who transforms the message given by the image with clever tricks and in invisible ways.

In Mircan Karaali’s book Gorki’nin Gitarı (Gorki’s Guitar), focusing on the experiences during incarceration of political prisoners, this everyday practice is narrated as follows:

To watch the news with this internalized mentality is inarguably the primary activity. Of course, the form of reporting reflects its mentality. In order to solve this logic, it is necessary to watch the news with scientific skepticism. Everybody knows that the media is a tool for leading, with manipulation, deception and packs of lies being the guiding principles of the media. A revolutionary mind, by decontaminating the news from the illusions that are assisted by the visuals,

106

establishes an objective ground. S/he evaluates its accuracy, fallacy and the possibility of the event, considering the conditions.79 (2008: 79).

Watching the news is a form of practice of reading in a de Certeauian sense. Here the practice of the prisoners is creative and productive, degenerating the domain of power in its place with its apparatuses and uniting those degenerated parts in different forms. As de Certeau says, this practice, since it is creative and productive, is an active act. In other words, although it may looks like defense, it is an attack against the nature of the practice that compels the other side to circle the wagons.

A similar situation emerges the memoirs of Uruguayan revolutionists E. Fernandez Huidobro and Mauricio Rosencof in the book Duvardaki Sarmaşık Gibi. In their prison lives, which were spent in intense isolation and in inhumane conditions in Uruguay, they were deprived of all means of communication. However, in the book, they talked about how they transformed their poor conditions into means of communication and media. According to Huidobro and Rosencof, they were able to gain an understanding of the situation, the political atmosphere and the economic state of affairs in the country through a piece of newspaper that had been used by the soldiers for toilet needs. Huidobro depicted their situation as follows:

We were able to read one quarter of a news item, one third of another, maybe the last line of another. We had to fabricate the rest through the power of imagination, and since fantasy is every time inclined towards the positive , we were able to regulate the world outside with the culture we obtained in the toilets of the barracks [in which they were incarcerated]80 (1993: 41).

79 “Tartışma götürmez denli içselleşmiş bu anlayışla haberleri izlemek, hapishanelerde öncelikli bir faaliyetti. Elbette haberlerin veriliş biçimi onun mantığını da açığa vururdu. O mantığı çözmek yakalamak için bilimsel şüphecilikle izlemek gerekirdi. Herkes bilir ki, medya bir yönlendirme aracıydı. Manipülasyon, aldatma, yalan-dolan medyanın ilkeleridir. İşte devrimci bir kafa, görüntülerle desteklenmiş bir biçimde sunulan haberleri bu yanılsamalardan arındırarak nesnel zeminine oturtur. Doğruluğunu, yanlışlığını, olmuş veya olabilme ihtimalini koşulları hesaba katarak değerlendirir.”

80 “Bir haberin dörtte birini, bir başkasının üçte birini ve bir başkasının belki de son satırını okuyabiliyorduk. Haberin geri kalanını kendimiz uydurmak zorundaydık; hayal gücü sayesinde ve fantezi her zaman olumluya eğilimli olduğu için, kışlaların helalarında yıllar içinde edindiğimiz bu kültürle dışarıdaki dünyayı güzelce düzenleyebiliyorduk.”

107

From Huidobro’s statement it can be concluded that “every reading modifies its object” (as cited in de Certeau, 1984: 169). This poetic81 activity of the reader creates a domain in which the system can be changed from its very base. De Certeau provides a striking example with the reading practices of Vessals who are banned from writing sacred texts of the catechism or of the Scriptures, being able only of reading those texts. He thinks that there is a powerful relationship between the reading of Vessals and the “reading” of television programs by audiences at the present time. For de Certeau, the reader is the one who:

invents in texts something different from what they “intended”. S/He detaches them from their (lost or accessory) origin. S/He combines their fragments and creates something unknown in the space organized by their capacity to allow an indefinite plurality of meanings (1984: 169).

This act of combining fragments and creating unknown meaning is inherent to this tactical practice of reading, but under certain conditions, as in the cases of the political prisoners in F-type prisons and in the dungeons of Uruguay, this practice is experienced in a more creative way.

4.2.2. Exercise Prisons create problems related to both mental and physical health, with eyesight, hearing, stomach, bowel and kidney problems all being common, and serious problems also occur in infirmaries and hospitals. It has been reported that in Turkey, there is only one ambulance for every nine prisons, and only one doctor for every 17,000 prisoners. Furthermore, for the 185,000 people currently incarcerated, there are only four dentists.82 There are also several civil society organization reports on prisons noting that prisoners in many cases are not taken to hospital for arbitrary

81 The word comes from poiēsis, derived from the ancient Greek verb poieo (ποιέω), meaning to create, to make.

82Retrieved from http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/siyaset/525743/Cezaevi_raporundan_cok_carpici_rakamlar__ AKP_doneminde_yuzde_211_artis.html 108 reasons, prisoners being forced to stand inside prison vans for hours on end, medical inspections in handcuffs and very poor conditions in prison medical centers.

Moreover, a number of important disorders are common among prisoners in F-type prisons as a result of the limited space. As mentioned previously, F-type prisons feature single or three-person cells that are respectively 10 and 50 square meters, and an exercise yard that has insufficient space to actually exercise. The resulting immobility leads to musculoskeletal disorders and intestinal and cardiovascular diseases, which are very common in F-type prisons. All of these problems have a detrimental effect on the health and lives of the prisoners, making prisons even less bearable.

Political prisoners, predicting the results of their conditions, exercise every day on a regular basis, although they have to create the necessary materials and equipment. Prison administrators, as with many other issues, do not provide the necessary means (equipment for weightlifting, basketball hoops, volleyball nets, football goals, etc.), citing security concerns. In order to survive and to remain healthy under these conditions, prisoners must transform certain permitted item into sports equipment. Under this sub-heading, we will provide three different examples of such tactical practices.

In the absence of purpose-made equipment, prisoners do weightlifting using plastic water bottles of different sizes as dumbbells. Prisoners must be economical in their use of money, and the developed communal system in prisons has clear-cut borders about this issue that have become normalized and accepted by the prisoners. Many of ex-prisoners said in the interviews that although they would normally use tap water for economic reasons for weightlifting and many other, they will often use the bottled water sold in the canteen to make use of the plastic bottles. These bottles, of different sizes, are then turned to weights by filling them with liquids or extra weights, which may be prepared from bread bags filled with heavy materials or liquids like tea. Like classic dumbbells, the weights can be increased with the addition of other plastic bottles. Using this method, the prisoners can create dumbbells at the weights they want. Toprak, an ex-prisoner, spoke about this creative transformation: 109

I told you that plastic bottles are vital! Heh, it is really vital there. Normally, you know, we use tap water for drinking. But in order to get the bottles […] For example, what is the thing that you lift? Heh dumbbell! There are bottles of various lengths and weights. You fill the bottles. You can install different things, weights, you can add to the end of the dumbbell. You can do bodybuilding, focusing on the wrist and arm. In the end, there is nothing in your hand, you have to produce something. We do with using what we have.83

They may also add a mop handle to create a barbell at the end of the process. Here, the prisoners, in the role of renter, use the items that the administration gives them for different purposes. This is in fact a re-use, in a de Certeauian sense. The thing that is imposed on the prisoners is turned into a tool for a healthy life84. The prisoners create dumbbells with what they have to hand, in the “place where [they] ha[ve] no choice but to live and which lays down its law for [them]” (1984: 30). This was a tactic adopted also by indigenous Indian people who made something else out of the rules, laws and practices imposed by the Spanish colonizers. The prisoners altered the conditions “through the many different ways of using them” (32). Using plastic bottles for exercise, in this sense, is an example of a tactical practice. As with other examples presented here, the power of the place and borders are watered down, and some unforeseen benefits are gained.

Another creative transformation practice among the prisoners is to change the exercise yard into a football field or a basketball court. As noted previously, F-type prisons operate an intense isolation model, and as can be seen in F-type plan, although there are open and closed areas allocated for sports, political prisoners do not/cannot benefit from the social activity opportunities which are limited after all.

 A Turkish expression that means “you make a good point”.

83 “Sana dedim ya pet şişe candır. Heh işte orda hakikaten hayatidir. Normalde musluktan da içeriz biliyosun. Ama işte orda onu kullancaz ya. […] Mesela işte şey yapıyorduk şu ağırlık kaldırıyorsun ya neydi o? Heh işte dambıl. Çeşit çeşit boyda var şişe. İçini dolduruyorsun. Başka ağır şeylerin varsa onu da takarsın ucuna takabiliyorsan. Bilek kol çalışırsın. Sonuçta yok elinde, bişey yapman lazım. Biz de elimizdekini kullanarak yapıyoduk.”

84 Of course, it cannot be said that by engaging in such sports activities, prisoners can maintain a healthy life, as this is not possible under such conditions, but these acts do improve the health conditions of the prisoners. 110

Some political organizations protest the treatment and rehabilitation understanding of the administration related to political prisoners by declining to use such social facilities, since they think, in the words of Ethem, “these social activity opportunities are like candy presented to political prisoners on the condition that they accept the rehabilitation policy, like there is something that must be rehabilitated”85, and one such activity is the use of the prison sports areas. Another reason why political prisoners may not benefit from these facilities can be attributed to prison regulations, with the right to use such facilities being tied to a status of “good standing” in the prison and the individual prisoners’ disciplinary records.

In response, prisoners who are unable to benefit from these rights change the exercise yards into a sports arena using available materials and equipment. Although there are problems related to the cell size of three people, which is not enough for a football or basketball team, the prisoners get round the problem by having just one goal, made of bottles filled with water, so that everyone can play or with standing down one of the prisoners who has different agenda. How they transform the exercise yard is explained by Rüzgâr such:

One of my client was telling. They were playing football, for example. I wondered and asked. Because there is no such a space to play. He said we are making goal posts from plastic bottles. Generally, everyone play on its own. Or one of them does not play. Do something different. Here, they fill the bottles with water; they do the lines of goals with it. As you know, in Astroturf pitch you play for coke or something like that. They do not play for something but from the other intimate cell there comes tea, juice so-and-so in the name of cola (laughing). Or they make a cake at the end of the match. Like the outside, they emulate the matches outside.86

85 “sanki iyileştirilmesi gereken bir şey varmış gibi tutsaklara bir nevi şeker gibi verilen”

86 “Bi tanesi [müvekkil] anlatıyordu işte. Futbol oynuyorlarmış mesela. Ben de merak ettim sordum işte. Çünkü o kadar alan yok. Dedi pet şişelerden kale yapıyoruz. Genelde herkes tek oluyormuş. Ya da bi kişi oynamıyor. Başka bi iş yapıyor. İşte pet şişeleri suyla dolduruyor, kalenin çizgilerini yapıyor onunla. İşte halı sahada olur ya kolasına falan oynarsın. Onlar bişeyine oynamıyormuş ama yandan diğer hücrelerden arkadaşlar maç bittiğinde onlara çay, meyve suyu falan atıyormuş kola hesabına (gülüyor). Ya da işte pasta falan yapıyormuş bittiğinde. Dışardaki gibi, ona benzetiyorlar.”

111

This means of creating a sports arena in the prison exercise yard may be thought of as a tactic related to place. For de Certeau, tactics cannot be defined with regard to place.

They [tactics] are no more localizable than the technocratic (and scriptural) strategies that seek to create places in conformity with abstract models. […] strategies are able to produce, tabulate, and impose these spaces when those operations take place, whereas tactics can only use, manipulate, and divert these spaces. (1984: 29-30)

In this example, the prisoners used the limited space made available to them for surveillance and punitive purposes. They manipulated it to emulate the outside world, and in doing so the prisoners carried the outside to the inside, making the existing punishment mentality meaningless. In other words, the sports arenas created in the exercise yards become part of outside, and being inside loses its meaning.

Making a basketball hoop from a washtub is the final example presented under this sub-heading. This will be explanatory for understanding how the transformation is materialized in the previous examples. Güneş, a former prisoner, describes this particular practice:

In the prisons, you make use of everything. […] I mean small things. For example, we play basketball. We make basket from washtub. […] You ask how? You buy washtub. In canteen, it is sold. We take it from there. We wash the clothes inside it normally. But you sacrifice it (laughing). You cut the middle of it with knife; from there the ball will pass. Then you hang on it to the bars with a piece of rope. Here is a basket for you (laughing)!87

As Güneş stated, in prison there is a place for everything to be used, and a washtub can change a 50-meter square exercise yard into a basketball court. Every single thing in these limited places can be changed into something that is dreamed of; and can be transformed into an acquisition of the weak against the power. A simple plastic bottle and a slogan can change a place into a small stadium. Later in the interview, as a

87 “Hapishanede her şeyi değerlendirirsin. […] Yani küçük şeyler işte. Mesela basket oynardık. Pota yapıyorduk işte leğenden. […] Nası mı? İşte leğeni alıyorsun. Zaten leğen satılıyor kantinde. Ondan alıyorduk. Normalde çamaşır felan yıkıyoruz onda. Ama işte feda ediyorsun yani (gülüyor). Ortasını bıçakla kesiyorsun, ordan top geçecek ya. İşte iple parmaklığa asıyorsun. Al sana pota (gülüyor)!”

112 reply to my question of“…then it turns into a real basketball court, lacking only an audience?”88, Güneş said:

Is it possible without audience? All the neighbors cheer. They are shouting out like “let’s press” “long live”. There is no difference from the outside, even more amusing. It is prodigiously exiting. Guards sometimes get surprised, they ask that “where you find something to laugh?” We are free prisoners, they put use there but only our bodies are there. They cannot arrest our minds, thoughts, dreams, you see!89

As stated by Güneş, these practices provide the political prisoners with an opportunity for escape, and although it is an imaginary escape, it cannot be blocked either by the guards or the wall. The prisoners turn their environment into the outside world with a simple washtub, and this thought, this state of being, epitomizes a tactical act of resistance in the de Certeauian sense. The laughter of the prisoners is a sign of manipulation and production, and these places become places of escape, since the prisoners can feel like they are outside the walls. De Certeau, starting the discussion from the restrooms of the trains, describes the place of escape as follows:

A bubble of panoptic and classifying power, a module of imprisonment that makes possible the production of an order, a closed and autonomous insularity – that is what can traverse space and make itself independent of local roots. (1984: 111)

These autonomous places in the exercise yards are projections of the “bubble of panoptic and classifying power”. As can be seen in the example of the basket, this place of escape and dreams constitutes a place where the walls are rendered meaningless, and an unlimited dream world against the limitations of power is created.

88 “o zaman tam bir basket sahasına dönüyor orası, bir tek seyirci eksik galiba?”

89 “Seyircisiz olur mu? Komşular hepsi tezahüratta. Bağırıyorlar işte, hadi şöyle, bastırın, işte çok yaşayın diye. Dışarıdan bir farkı yok, daha bile eylenceli. Müthiş heyecanlı oluyor. Gardiyanlar bazen şaşırıyordu, bu kadar sevinmeyi nerden buluyorsunuz diye. Biz özgür tutsağız, bizi oraya koymuşlar ama bedenimiz orda. Aklımızı, düşüncelerimizi, hayallerimizi tutamazlar ya!” 113

4.2.3. Drawing / Painting Another daily activity engaged in by the political prisoners that has a significant place and takes up a significant proportion of the day is drawing and painting, which take place both in the cells and in workshops. Works that require special equipment and materials are generally carried out only in the workshops, as allowing such materials inside the cells constitutes a potential security risk for the administration. This has led to various approaches by different political organizations in the prisons, with some using the workshops and others declining their use as a protest against the policies of the administration (although some organizations allow members who have been sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment to use the workshops). Here we shall discuss both how these prohibitions are circumvented by the prisoners, and how this situation is turned into something of use to the prisoners.

Firstly, it must be noted that de Certeau’s example of using restrooms on trains as a place of escape will serve as a pathfinder in this part of the thesis. De Certeau identifies train restrooms as places where there is an opportunity to escape the panoptic space. Aside from those places, everything has its place in the train; “only a rationalized cell travels” (1984: 111). The practice of drawing and painting have the similar effect, in that they provide an opportunity for escape from panoptic places. It is the dreams of the prisoners that find themselves in the colors and canvases, ruining the state of everything being in its proper place and in military order.

The use of various materials, for example coffee powder, for painting is the first example presented under this sub-heading of tactical activities. Azad said that his client, who is serving an aggravated life sentence, likes painting, but the prison administration will not allow him to do engage in such an activity. To overcome this, he started collecting coffee powder (how much the administration allows to save), which he would blend with different liquids (oil, etc.) to make a strong paint and sent to his relatives. His painting has been exhibited in a gallery, and written below his works is the request, “While looking at this painting, take a coffee for me”.

Since the regulations ban the keeping of such equipment and materials in the cells, the prisoners creatively transform what they have to hand through different 114 processes. From ex-prisoners Suphi Nejat describe how they make their own paint colors:

Purple and navy blue: Collard leaves are soaked in water, which is allowed to stand for a while. The tone of the color depends on the length of time of the soaking.

Brown: Brown can be obtained from strong freshly brewed tea and watered down coffee powder. Ground cinnamon in water gives both a brown color and a rough surface, although this is unsuitable for painting canvas, and can only be used on paper.

White: A pilot pen is cleaned. Bleach is added to the gall ink, and the result is a pen that writes white.

Pink: The prisoners obtain a pink color by adding powdered drink mix to water.

Concentrated and intense colors: Some common cold medications and drugs on callus are soaked into the anti-scale. They use water as a decolorant in this process.

Bulut, another ex-prisoner, said that they also used certain vegetables to obtain colors for painting, such as lemon rind for yellow, greens (lettuce, parsley, sorrel, spinach, etc.) for green, which they would rub onto the surface. He showed another method of making color. The printers’ color blocks found at the bottom of newspaper pages for the color standardization are used by the prisoners as a raw material for painting. By watering down or hitting the surface, they are able to extract color from them.

Another interviewee, Özgür, explained how a friend of his in prison obtained colors for painting:

He produced oil color with the materials came from the outside. Oil color. You want, for example, powder paint, I mean wall paint which in the powder form. He was mixing some oils with these materials. He used to get higher quality colors than the ones which are sold. Yeah! It was cheaper also. After all, he was painting.90

90 “Boyayı da şeyden yapmış kendi imal etmişti ama şey dışardan gelen malzemelerle imal etmişti. Yağlı boyayı. Ne istiyorsun mesela toz boya istiyorsun, duvar boyaları var ya toz. Onlarla bi takım yağları karıştırıyordu. Yağlı boyadan daha kaliteli bi boya elde ediyordu. Hee. Çok da ucuza mal ediyordu. Resim de yapıyordu zaten çocuk.” 115

Using walls as a painting surface also falls under this heading. Prison regulations ban prisoners from keeping canvases in their cells, and state that such activities must take place in workshops. Accordingly, prisoners who want to continue their artistic activities within their cells have develop different methods to allow them to do so. Since canvases and drawing blocks (drawing paper) are not allowed inside the cells, the prisoners have turned to the walls as a suitable surface for this conversion. In prisons, the walls are painted in single-color pastel tones (soft colors), and the prisoners change them into a canvas with their colors and crayons. An ex-prisoner from among the interviewees said that one of his friends, after “Operation Return to Life” and its results, drew Guernica (an oil painting on canvas by Pablo Picasso) on the wall of his new cell, but when the guards noticed, they painted the wall back to its previous color. The prisoner did not give up though, and drew it again and again at the cost of a disciplinary penalty. The interviewee said that the drawing was like a carbon copy of the original Guernica painting.

As stated previously, in prison, everything is used to the maximum extent. Regardless of the material, it can be turned into something useful that is of benefit to the prisoners. A good example of this would be the transformation of an advertising brochure into a present. In Güneş’s words:

We had bought a newspaper. There was an advertising brochure inside the newspaper. I think it was an ads of a building society. When you find it, you get a new meaning, a new image. Ok? When you fold, it shows that you have bought a new house; then, you enter the bathroom of this house, etc. It was such a strange thing. I sent it to one of friend’s sister. She was paralyzed. She has a wreck. We reorganized the brochure according to our thoughts. With pictures and texts. However, it was the transformation what you have. It can be interpreted as something political.91

The transformation of an advertising brochure into a postcard resembles the practice of a housewife serving her guests with the best combinations of what she has in her

91 “Yani bi tane şey biz gazete almıştık. Gazetede bi tane şeyin reklamı içinde var, reklam broşürü. Şeyin bi tane inşaat şirketiydi galiba. Broşür de böyle katlandıkça yeni bir anlam çıkıyor, resim çıkıyor. Tamam mı? Katlandıkça ev alıyor, evin bi yerini açıyorsun banyo oluyor. Öyle tuhaf bişeydi. Ben onu bi arkadaşın kardeşi vardı ona yollamıştım. Felçliydi kız. Trafik kazası geçirmişti. Onu tabi biz kendimize göre biçimlendirmiştik. İşte resim yazılar falan. Ama o varolan üzerinden dönüştürmekti. Siyasi olabilecek ya da yorumlanabilecek.” 116 refrigerator. The housewife “combine[s] heterogeneous elements” with “possible combinations of what she already has on hand at home”, and in the end, the “intellectual synthesis of these given elements takes the form, however, not of a discourse, but of the decision itself, the act and manner in which the opportunity is ‘seized’.” (1984: xix). Similar to the practice of the housewife, political prisoners, in this example, use what they had to hand, and in a similar manner, eventually, the prisoners gained a new meaning, a synthesis of the given elements.

4.2.4. Communication Different to the dormitory system, occupants of F-type prisons, to a great extent, face significant problems and violations of rights related to the issue of communication. First and foremost, as an isolation model, F-type prisons are established on the basis of separation of the prisoners, with the belief being they become less “dangerous” when isolated. In this regard, the first activity to be subjected to intervention by the administration is communication. It can be said that the main purpose of F-type prisons to break communications among the prisoners themselves, which is achieved through both architectural design and rules and regulations. To limit or even stop communications between inmates, 8 meter-high walls are built and the capacity of cells is reduced, as evidence of this strategy. It is no surprise that prisoners who are given aggravated life imprisonment face more difficulties related to this issue. Political prisoner occupants of single cells are effectively deprived of tools that would aid communication with both the inside and outside world.92

Needless to say, this form of architecture is supported by the rules and regulations in prisons. Article 144 of the Law on the Execution of Penalties and Security Measures

92 Using a general description of F-type prisons, prisoners in single cells experience three forms of isolation. The first is related with the location of F-type prisons, which tend to be established in rural areas; the second is isolation from the outside with walls and regulations; and lastly, the prisoners who are sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment are isolated also from their fellow inmates inside. This represents total isolation, although the General Directorate of Prisons and Detention Houses advocates the opposite. 117 mentions “depriving prisoners of correspondence and communication devices” as a form of disciplinary penalty, while Article 148 says:

Article 148 – (1) The penalty of depriving inmates of correspondence and communication devices includes depriving them of access to faxes or telegrams, banning the receiving and sending of letters for periods of between one and three months, removal of radio, television and telephone privileges, and other communication devices.

(3) Letters, faxes and telegrams delivered for the convicts are handed over once the penalty period has come to an end.

The communication penalties mentioned constitute an attempt to regulate prisoners’ relationships with the outside world. These rules reflect the mentality of F-type prison model in which isolation begins with manipulation of the inmates’ relations with the outside world.

A further aspect relates to communication among the prisoners themselves. As would be expected, there are severe limitations applied to this, although the political prisoners, as with their other daily practices, have found creative and smart solutions to circumvent the limitations on communication among themselves.

Before starting this analysis, it is necessary to mention an important notion that the prisoners use in F-type prisons related to the architecture, being “neighborhood”, as this will be helpful in understanding the tactical communication practices mentioned in this section. The type of communication changes with respect to the neighborhood, of which there are four types: exercise yard, cell, manhole and loophole.

As can be seen from the figure in Appendix, every three-man cell has its own exercise yard. Since the cells doors are closed all the time, prisoners are prevented from using the corridors to see and communicate with each other. Indeed, the three people in a cell will never see another person under normal conditions. Accordingly, in order to communicate with other prisoners with whom they cannot come together physically, the inmates come up with creative communication methods that differ according to the type of neighborhood.

118

We will begin by describing the neighborhood in F-type prisons from the perspective of a triple cell: Cell-4. The exercise yard of Cell-4 neighbors that of Cell-2, and the two cells are separated by a thick concrete block wall. The cell next to Cell-4 is Cell- 1, and while their walls are adjacent, they cannot use the same exercise yard. The manhole neighbor of Cell-4 is Cell-10 due to the structure of F-type prisons, which will be handled under the Manhole sub-heading. Lastly, the loophole neighbors of Cell-4 are Cell-5 and Cell-6, which are in the same corridor, but since their doors are locked, they can only communicate via the loopholes.

The single cells have a more complex neighborhood layout. The exercise yards and cells are next to each other; for example, Cell-1 and Cell-2 are cell neighbors, and are exercise yard neighbors of Cell-3, Cell-4 and Cell-5. Each single cell exercise yard is connected to the exercise yard of a triple cells via a manhole. For instance, the manhole of Cell-31 is connected to the manhole of Cell-1 and Cell-2.

In both single and triple cells, political prisoners have adopted communication methods within the neighborhood, and we will deal with four such methods here. Although these cover only some of the communication methods, they are the most striking and convenient examples of communication tactics.

4.2.4.1. Corresponding In this section of the thesis, we will analyze how the prisoners cope with the limitations and obligations related to the issue of correspondence. Correspondence is an important aspect of the prisoners’ lives, especially those incarcerated for political reasons, in that it represents a continuation of the relationship with the outside world. Firstly, they maintain a relationship with the organization of which they are a member outside, with letters being the main communication device in this regard. Secondly, as the interviewees underlined many times, political prisoners do not consider themselves guilty, and they try to continue their lives in an uninfluenced way. Obtaining news and maintaining contact with the outside world is the most basic goal

119 of political prisoners, and so great importance is attached to the issue of correspondence.

For prisoner correspondence, there are some limitations and prohibitions on the size of the cargo and the content of letters, and effect both sides – the prisoners and the correspondent – and this has led prisoners and their correspondents to develop some creative coping practices.

Writing in lemon juice is one of the tactical everyday strategies of political prisoners. The restrictive Institutional Board Committees of prisons93 can censor and block letters they consider to be “dangerous” or “undesirable”, both in the process of sending and receiving. In order not to be censored by the committee, inmates use lemon juice, which only shows up on the paper when heat is applied. The technique requires lemon juice (or just a lemon itself), a pencil and paper, and is a well-known communication method used by prisoners, even if it is not used much. In using this strategy, the prisoners are able to send secret messages using permitted materials. What they use in the production of such invisible letters is something that is given (bought) by the administration for other “allowed” purposes, although their intended use is manipulated by the prisoners. The use of such a technique should be invisible, in that “power is bound by its very visibility” through their regulations, models and architecture. However, the weak must be invisible in their action to survive within the place of the other. As de Certeau states, “trickery is possible for the weak, and often it is his only possibility, as a ‘last resort’” (1984: 37). The weak, as the name implies, cannot remove those rules and regulation, in that they lack the power to do so, and if they cannot be removed, then the visible rules and regulations can be circumvented only through invisible practices.

When the act involves a potential penalty, prisoners become much more creative in order to overcome potential difficulties. Penalties related to correspondence are common in the daily lives of political prisoners. If they are fined and disciplined with

93 Every letter from outside to inside and from inside to outside is read by a committee that has the power to censor or block the content. The committees are made up of prison and administrative personnel who are experienced and expert people. 120 a correspondence ban, they cannot receive or send letters. The administration withholds all incoming letters and does not send letters by the prisoner until the end of the punishment. One of the coping tactics developed by the prisoners is to send letters in the name of another prisoner. In order to be sent under the name of the other prisoner, the “penalized” prisoner sends the letter to the other prisoner, which, if they are in the same cell (in this case, a three-man cell), there is no problem, but if there is no one else in the cell to send the letter, the prisoner must somehow get it to other cells. This transfer can be handled by the prison “airlines”, which will be discussed in detail later in this section. After the letter has arrived at the other cell, this second prisoner sends the mail to the real correspondent in the name of the second prisoner. In this way, the message is delivered to the recipient without breaking the rules.

Another way of sending such letters is a little more complex. This time the mediator is on the outside. The sender sends the mail under her/his own name to a person who is not the real correspondent. This person outside again sends the letter to the real correspondent in the name of herself/himself. This method is used when there is a risk like censor, or the when the context of the letter will gain a different meaning if the prison committee knows the real sender. By using this method, the real sender remains hidden.

These examples of methods of communicating have similarities with the tactical way of walking in the city, as de Certeau points out. The methods used by political prisoners are imaginary routes that grey the borders drawn by the incarceration institutions. The outside and inside become mixed, and the inside becomes a field without walls. This is the domain in which the panoptic administration of the prison looks to control everything, but is not successful in a real sense. Similar to walkers in the city, prisoners in F-type prisons,

far from being regulated or eliminated by a panoptic administration, have reinforced themselves in a proliferating illegitimacy, developed and insinuated themselves into the networks of surveillance, and combined in accord with unreadable but stable tactics to the point of constituting everyday regulations and surreptitious creativities that are merely concealed by the frantic mechanisms and discourses of the observational organization (1984: 96).

121

These routes which are developed by the prisoners to overcome the limitations that the administration imposed are the practices which penetrate into these “frantic mechanism of the observational organization”.

4.2.4.2. Prison Ball This is one of the life-savers within prisons. Upon entering prison, the breakoff phenomenon and fear are the first reactions. One ex-prisoner describes it as such “from the moment you enter the prison, you no longer belong to yourself, but to the administration. This is the place of your funeral, there is no escape from these holes”. In such a place, communication has a significant place, and when communication among the prisoners has been blocked in such a strict manner by the prison administration, the coping mechanism becomes more creative. Prison ball is a sui generis practice of prisons in Turkey that has developed as a result of the special F- type architecture and some other structural considerations.

In F-type prisons, the walls to the exercise yard are 8 meters high, and are topped with barb wire. When prisoners want to get messages or items over the walls, they have to overcome these difficulties, and for this reason, the aforesaid balls must be durable.

How the balls are made is shown in Appendix-11 with a pictorial representation. Although there are many ways and techniques of making prison balls, the method shown here is one of the most common among the political prisoners.

The recipe is as follows: A piece of newspaper is dampened while being folded, and this operation continues until it arrives at its smallest form. Then, it is squeezed to make it smaller. The newspaper is then wrapped in a nylon bag and then sealed using a lighter, giving the ball durability. A piece of plastic cut from a plastic bottle is wrapped around the newspaper, and then this new composition is also burned. In this way, a tough heavy object is obtained. The note to be sent is written on a small piece of paper, and if it is long, a fine lead pencil is used. A small folded paper envelope is prepared, and the note or message is put inside the envelope and wrapped around the 122 ball. The name of the recipient (in code, if required) is written on the envelope, and the cell number. Under the cell number and name is the sender’s name (or code name). The prisoners determine the route, and the ball is thrown accordingly at an appropriate angle.

This creative way of communicating is a transgression of the limits set by the walls and regulations. The note inside the ball travels around the exercise yard, with the walls constituting no obstacle.

When communicating using prison balls, after preparing a durable ball it is necessary to determine the most convenient route. As mentioned previously, political prisoners in F-type prisons are kept separated where possible, with people from other (especially right-wing political organizations) organizations or ordinary prisoners kept in the cells between them, leading to some particular problems. For example, a ball that falls into an exercise yard may not be rerouted to the correct cell if the inmate is from an opposing faction. Furthermore, they may read the note inside, they may tell on the administration about the message or the ball, or they may just discard the ball. In order to prevent such events, the prisoners determine a safe and secure route that is also short-cut. To give an imaginary example, the prisoner in A1-394 wants to send a message to C5-14. The red crosses on the plan represent the cells that are considered dangerous, containing either right-wing prisoners, or ordinary prisoners who may pass the ball to the administration. A possible route95 for the ball is shown in the figure, and while this is an exaggerated example, it is an entirely possible one. This method is used generally in situations where prisoners are kept remote from each other, or when it is of utmost importance that the note not fall into the wrong hands. This strategy is similar to the examples of the routes developed by prisoners

94 Here in A1-3 refers to: A:block; 1:the number of side corridor which cell A3 belongs to; 3: is the name/number of the cell.

95 See Appendix-12.

123 for correspondence, in which an imaginary route is drawn by the prisoners that is used to transgress the walls.

4.2.4.3. Manhole Another method of communicating in F-types is by using the manholes, which is referred to by prisoners as “FM” or the “telephone”. This method involves actual speaking, unlike the other methods presented here.

This method makes use of the manholes in the exercise yards, although they differ in design96 among F-type prisons, with some being just a hole, and some covered by a loophole or metal plate. Suphi Nejat explained how the manhole method works:

Another method is the manhole or water expenses,97 maybe the friends have told before (laughing). I don’t know whether they drew the mentality of it. Its mentality is this. The direction is always the same. In the logic of F-types: the three of the cells share the same manhole facility because of its building. Its logic is this. According to its architecture mentality, this is made in order to drain of the sewage. They produced this like that. One block of the building is separated into two parts. Up until the cell 18 uses the same. When we draw the bigger one [map] we can look again. Three of the cell’s water expenses are linked to each other. That is, the cells 1, 7, 13. 2, 8, 14. Look,1,7,13. It is learnt like this. For example, the cells 11 and 16 are not linked with the manholes. Since from now on, you know the direction.98

96 See Appendix-5.

97 In Turkish, it is used in two ways: “rögar” or “logar”.

98 “Diğer bir yöntem zaten daha önceki arkadaşlar da bahsetmişlerdir: rögar ya da logar deliğidir (gülüyor). Hani onun mantığını çizdiler mi sana bilmiyorum ama. Onun şeyi de şu, mantığı da şu. Şimdi şey, hep yön aynıdır. F tipinin mantığında da şu vardır. 3 tane hücrenin rögarı aynı, inşaat böyle yani. Mantığı şu. Mimari gereği kanalizasyon sularının gitmesini sağlamak için yapılmıştır bu. Ve şöyle yapmışlar. Bir bloğu aslında temel olarak iki şeye bölüyorlar. O da şu demek hani şuraya kadar 18'e kadar bir. O büyük şeyi çizdiğimde yine üzerinden geçeriz. Şey de şu. 3 hücrenin gideri birbirine bağlıdır. Yani bu şu demek: 1, 7, 13. 2, 8, 14. Bak, 1, 7, 13. Hani öyle ezberleniyor. Mesela 1'le 16'nınki değildir. Çünkü artık yönünü biliyorsundur yani.”

124

Günay also explained how manholes were used in this way:

Think that a person is trying to reach another person with these manholes by getting close to the manhole nearly a mixed. That is to say, think such a telephone. Also, we call it manhole ‘FM’. Or when a prisoner wants to hail a friend from other cell, he says “come on to the telephone”. Or he calls for the friend with loud sound; come on to manhole. Or when you hit the ground like ‘pat pat pat’99, it echoes. Since below the surface is empty. When you hit the ground like ‘pat pat pat’, this means ‘come on to the manhole’. Not everybody hears, for sure, they are usually inside the cells. That is, to call the people to manhole is a distinct talent and also a problem. Or if he does not come to the manhole in spite of your hits on the ground, then you take Vileda mop handle and hit the bars ‘tak tak tak tak’. This is another method.100

These are the holes and clack which are opened on the ground of the power. As de Certeau says, the tactical operation here “make[s] use of the cracks that particular conjunctions open in the surveillance of the proprietary powers. It poaches in them. It creates surprises in them. It can be where it is least expected. It is a guileful ruse.” (1984: 37). As Berkin says:

Just like the prisoners who developed coping mechanisms against F-type prisons and developed alternatives, the state took this idea from Europe. For example, the architecture of F-type prisons came from the United States, from the countries of Europe, although the alternatives developed by Turkey’s European counterparts for political prisoners are not the same. In this regard, I think Turkey, by which I mean the state, learned about F-types from our practices. Just like us, the state develops alternatives against us. It is like a strategy game. For good and all, it is a chess game. Even, some millimetric moves are made.101

99 The sound made by hitting the ground.

100 “Birisinin bi kanalizasyon deliğinde, yüzünü bir karış yaklaştırıp birisine ulaşmayı düşünsün. Hani öyle bir telefon düşünsün yani. Hatta biz buraya işte logar FM denir mesela. Ya da işte genelde de birisi birisini logara çağırçağı zaman telefona gel telefona gel denir. Ya da şöyle olur logara nasıl çağrılır. Sesle çağrılır, işte telefona gel, logara gel. Ya da şöyle olur. Mesela ayağınla böyle pat pat vurduğun zaman yankı yapar. Aşağısı boş ya. Pat pat pat yaptığın zaman o da logara gel anlamına gelir. Tabi herkes duymuyor, içerde oluyorlar. Hani insanları logara çağırmak ayrı bir maharet ve dert yani. Ya da işte ayağınla gelmiyorsa o çekpas sopasının arkasını alırsın, o demirlere tak tak tak tak vurursun, öyle bir de çağırabilirsin.”

101 “Hani nasıl ki tutsaklar hani F tipini tanıma ona karşı alternatifler geliştirme düzeyinde orda yaşamlarını sürdürüyorlarsa devlet de sonuçta bir fikri almış Avrupa'dan. Mesela AB'den, AB ülkelerinden F tipi şeyini almış mimarisini koymuş. Ama sonuçta hani Avrupa'daki tutsaklarla, ya da 125

To make an analogy between everyday life activities and a game is an important point for our subject matter. From Ali’s statement we can understand that the state, the administration, take a guard after the practice of the prisoners. In other words, the state learns from the deeds of the political prisoners and develops strategies within its system of incarceration and the regulation. In that sense, the game is played only by one side, being the side of the prisoners, as the other side only aims to regulate and reorganize the rules of the game. Accordingly, prisoners have to make millimetric moves in this domain, and so the rules are permanently changing. The moves of the state are not contrary to the activities of the prisoners, but rather an intervention in the form of a rule change.

Another communication method u8sing a manhole is the cableway system. In Güneş’s words:

Yeah, from manhole, we use it as a method. The guy sends tea from his cell to here, for example. In… Yeah, from the pipe; he establishes something like a cableway.102

Since this is a strange example, I asked other interviewees whether they had used a similar system for communication. The general reply was that had not due to the bends in the pipes between manholes, making the system impractical, but that it could be possible in other F-type prisons where the infrastructure may be different. The system works as follows: Using a wire or rope (which must be strong and durable), two neighboring cells can be linked via the manhole. It is elliptical like the real teleferic. The item to be sent is attached to the rope and is pulled through the underground infrastructure by the recipient. Again, in this case, the prisoners use what they have to hand in a creative way, and can again be attributed to the mentality of the weak to search for easy ways within the system that may be invisible.

tutsakların geliştirdiği alternatiflerle Türkiye'dekiler aynı değil yani. O yüzden Türkiye de kendi deneyimini, devlet açısından söylüyorum o da bizim üzerimizden öğreniyor yani. Hani nasıl ki biz ona karşı bir alternatif geliştiriyorsak o da bize karşı geliştiriyor. Hani sürekli aslında bildiğin strateji oyunu yani. Hani bildiğin satranç yani. Hatta yerel milimetrik hamleler yapılıyor.”

102 “He rögardan işte basit birşey ama yöntem, kullanıyoz. Adam burdan oraya çay yolluyor mesela. Şeyde... He borudan, teleferik gibi bişey kurmuş.” 126

4.2.4.4. Holes Many ex-prisoners claimed during the interviews that political prisoners analyze the architecture and structure of their prisons in detail, and it is in this way that new means of communication are discovered. By examining the architectural structure, prisoners discovered that the walls between exercise yards are made of 4-meter long concrete slabs laid on top of each other. The connection between the slabs is provided by a metal hook at the center of each slab. At the site of the hook is a small hole that passes right through to the other side, and while the builders covered these holes with plaster and put a cap on them, the political prisoners found them and were able to remove the cap and use them as a means of communication. Suphi Nejat says:

The hole that you opened in the exercise yard sees the ground floor of the opposite cell. It sees the windows of downstairs and the bars. When our friend stands in front of the window, you can see him from height. You see him from height. Along many years, we shared many things, invaluable sharings via these holes in the walls of the exercise yard. But this is like that. At the same time, this is the basic invention in the visual and audial communication.103

This method, which took advantage of a feature of the architectural structure was for a long time the most common and easy way of communicating with other prisoners, but after discovering the strategy, the administration filled the holes with silicone, and anyone caught attempting to open the holes again were subjected to disciplinary action. Suphi Nejat says:

Well, you were removing the plug; you shared whatever you share, then you closed it. But the place is worn off, the stones are fallen, this and that. This situation was attracted the attention. First times, they just said to us not to use it. We continued to use. Then, they took the caps and put pieces of stick of the squeegee and then again closed there. After much effort on our part, we removed the pieces. As a last stage they closed there with lime coating. In fact, they cut corners. In one sense, they establish high security prisons but on the other hand they cut the corners. What

103 “Bir havalandırmadan açtığın delik karşı hücrenin alt katını görüyor. Alt katının penceresini, parmaklıklarını görüyor. İşte karşıdaki arkadaş gidip o pencerenin önünde durduğu zaman sen onu hemen hemen boydan görmüş oluyorsun yani. Boydan görmüş oluyorsun. Çok uzun yıllar bu iki hücre arasındaki havalandırma duvarında açılan deliklerle çok büyük şeyler hani paylaşımlar oldu. Ama tabi bu bi de şöyle bişey. Aynı zamanda F tipindeki hani en sesli ve görsel iletişimdeki en temel bulunmuş icat diyim yani.”

127

do they do, well; you can remove the lime over time. The last time, it has not been even 1 or 2 years, they covered the holes with silicone.104

Another hole used by the political prisoners for communication can be found in the cells themselves. The cells are laid out in a symmetrical pattern. In other words, their stairways are next to each other. At the end of the stairways (last two stairs)105 near the second floor, the prisoners open a hole which has appropriate structure (that means this point of the wall is appropriate to make a hole, it has a soft structure here). This method of communication is used after the doors are closed. Although these two cells are next to each other, and closer to each other than any other cell in the prison, communication between them is very limited. Using this and other methods, these limitations are overcome.

Weak points within the architectural system are exploited by political prisoners as a result of creative thoughts and practices. As in the line of this paper, this state of filling the gaps does not bring the removal of the prisons. Indeed, through these practices, which are vital for the survival of the political prisoners, means of continuation within the prison system are provided. In other words, prisoners are able to make their lives easier and more livable in F-type prisons. If this is a game, then it is the pawns that are the real heroes, based on how they overcome small daily inconveniences.

Don’t let it be misunderstood; I said just now that after they closed the holes, we did not effort to open them again. They started to give cell confinement. We did

104 “Hani sen orayı açıyordun o tıpayı kaldırıyordun, paylaşçağını paylaşıyordun sonra kapatıyordun yani. Ama hani oralar yıprandı taşları döküldü, şu oldu bu oldu. Hani hücre aramalarında göze çarpıyordu. Geldiklerinde mesela ilk başlarda hani bunu kapatın kullanmayın dediler. Kullanılmaya devam ettik. Daha sonra o kapakları alıp oralara işte böyle bikaç tane kırık işte bu çekpas. Çekpas sopasının parçalarını o deliğe koyup kapattılar mesela. İşte onları da çıkartıyorsun uzun emekler sonrasında. Ondan sonra son aşama olarak buralara kireç döküp kapattılar. Bunlar şeyin kolayına kaçıyorlar aslında. Hem çok büyük yüksek güvenlik yapıyorlar ama kolayına da kaçıyorlar. Napıyorlardı işte, koydukları kireci de sen zamanla sökebiliyorsun. En son, son bir iki yıl olmamıştır bile. Silikonla kapattılar artık orayı.”

105 See Appendix-8. 128

not give up the use of the holes. Let’s say it became a more expensive telephone operator (laughing). The holes became more expensive.106

This basic economy of the prisoners is based on the effects and opportunities afforded by these collective practices. By calculating the pros and cons of an issue, the prisoners reorganize their communication methods.

4.2.5. Doing Foods and Beverages In Practice of Everyday Life II, in the chapter entitled “Doing-Cooking”, Luce Giard claims that it is important to show the tactical way of cooking. He states that: “Such life activities [activities related to cooking] demand as much intelligence, imagination, and memory as those traditionally held as superior, such as music and weaving. In this sense, they rightly make up one of the strong aspects of ordinary culture.” (1990: 151)

In F-type prisons, the administration serves three meals in a day, and no equipment for cooking is allowed in the cells apart from kettles. Everybody in the prisons depends on then served meals, which are delivered at set times during the day, and no other meals or food are served. This raises problems for sick prisoners or those with a special diet (e.g. vegetarians, vegans, etc.), who have to be careful about what they eat, as the food packets are delivered to the prison without taking into account individual dietary needs. Under these circumstances, prisoners change their cells into small kitchens. A lawyers interviewed for the study said: “There, the guys invented fire. What can they do better?”107

Rumed narrates how cook in their cells:

106 “Şey yanlış anlaşılmasın hani biraz önce dedim ya delikleri kapattılar artık açmaya da uğraşılmadı bi yerden sonra da hücre cezaları geldi hani. O konuşmaktan vazgeçildiği için değil. Hani konuşmak için daha pahalı bir operatör diyelim (gülüyor). O delik daha pahalı bir şeye dönüştü.”

107 “orada bizimkiler ateşi buldu, dana ne yapsınlar!”

129

We do cooking by ourselves. Well. There are tomatoes, pepper, well, the meats which took out from the food packet. We separate them. Then we cut the old jeans. We chop up them. We buy oil and olive oil from canteen. We cover them [pieces of jeans] with the oil. The jeans. But we cut it. We cut it into small pieces like a ribbon. The old ones. There 3 steel cookers inside the cell. Within one of them we light a fire. The other one is put on this cooker. Two. How were we used to do it? Between these two? We established such a system. We light fire within one of them. Then, you put the cooker on this fire. When the ribbon is finished, then you make a new one and put it.108

“Tırşık” is a special meal prepared by Kurdish political prisoners on special days as part of the Kurdish culture. Giard interpreted the situation as follows: “When political circumstances or the economic situation forces one into exile, what remains the longest as a reference to the culture of origin concerns food, if not for daily meals, at least for festive times – it is a way of inscribing in the withdrawal of the self a sense of belonging to a former land (terroir).” (1984: 184). In other words, the meal represents an identity, and carries a huge memory in its baggage, and in this sense, tırşık is another means of self-identification.

Tırşık is the most popular food in F-type prisons (if the chicken is used in the meals at that period) since it is both hearty and easy to make, being composed of chicken and certain vegetables. The vegetables are obtained from the canteen, while the chicken, on the other hand, is picked out of the food packets delivered by the administration. The process of cooking is done as aforementioned in the quotation.

As can be seen from the ingredients and recipe, cooking in F-type prisons is a complex activity. In our example, the first process is collecting the chicken meat from the provided meals, after which the process of disinfection starts. The prisoners clean the meat of oil and other ingredients by putting it in water (alkaline solution).

108 “Kendimiz yemek yapıyoruz. Şey. Domates biber şey yemeklerde çıkan etler var. Onları ayırıyoruz. Kot pantolonları kesiyoruz. İnce ince. Sıvı yağ, zeytin yağ alıyorduk şeyden, kantinden. Sıvı yağa buluyoruz tek tek. Kot pantolonu. Kesiyoruz ama. İnce ince kesiyoruz, şerit gibi. Eskileri. Onları şey yapıyoruz, yağa şey yapıyoruz bir tencerenin içine, çelik tencere var üç tane. Birinde ateş yakıyoruz. Diğerini de onun üzerine iki. Nasıl yapıyorduk ya o ateşi? İkisinin arasında mı yakıyorduk? Öyle bir sistem kurmuştuk. Tencerede yakıyoruz da. Üste de tencereyi koyuyorsun. O şerit bittikçe yenisini koyuyorsun işte.” 130

Afterwards, they prepare the other ingredients, such as pepper, tomatoes, etc. The final process is the cooking, which takes place over a “handmade fire”.

All these processes require intelligence, creativity and a multiple memory, according to Giard. Intelligence in this respect refers to a programming mind, in that, as Giard states, “one must astutely calculate both preparation and cooking time, insert the various sequences of actions among one another, and set up the order of dishes in order to attain the desired temperature at the right moment” (1990: 157), referring to the knowledge of necessary processes and the ability to follow these processes. Creativity, according to Giard, is the creative ingenuity of cleverness, referring to the ability to produce from what one has to hand, or the practice of making something from leftovers. Finally, cooking requires a multiple memory, “a memory of apprenticeship, of witnessed gestures, and of consistencies” (1990: 157). Every cooking process has a history, and every practice of cooking requires the recollection of those memories.

The prison cake is another special food in F-type prisons. Political prisoners do not normally consume such foods due to the lack of availability, as well as the strict rules about spending that frowns upon the extreme consumption of such things. However, on special days, political prisoners make “prison cakes” from a recipe developed within the prison community that dates back to the dormitory system. After the establishment of F-type prisons, these cakes changed in size, shape and content, in that in F-type prisons, the foods that can be kept in the cells are limited, and lack diversity. These cakes are generally made from biscuits, milk or juices, and from seasonal fruits. A creative montage takes place here that is based on what the circumstances permit. This mode of operation resembles the tactical practices of housewives who create the best foods for their guests by looking at the possible combinations of what she has in her home. The creativity here comes from the necessities and impossibilities. In other words, the housewife can cook what she has to hand and what she can afford to buy from the supermarket.

Doing-cooking thus rests atop a complex montage of circumstances and objective data, where necessities and liberties overlap, a confused and constantly changing 131

mixture through which tactics are invented, trajectories are carved out, and ways of operating are individualized. (1990: 201).

In this sense, making cakes out of the available ingredients is a montage of necessities and liberties. The prisoners, in spite of their many limitations and impossibilities, demonstrate their creative intelligence in the handmade “prison cakes”.

One of the more elaborate beverages made in F-type prisons is wine, which is banned and subject to penal sanctions due to its alcohol content. The prisoners, in fact, respect the law and do not bring alcoholic drinks from the outside, however they do produce such drinks. In their words, the grapes that are delivered during the summer season in food packets are accumulated, or if they are served in the canteen, the prisoners buy them from there.109 The accumulation process must be done in secret so as not to draw the attention of the administration or guards. In particular, the benchtop in downstairs is used for this allocation issue. Some of the cells put some clothes to this area. This makes postpone the notice of the guards up to cell searches which take place once a month in detailed way.110

As Pierre Mayol said of the residents of Croix-Rousse in a French neighborhood, wine is a symbol of temperance and festival, and above all, wines produced under those conditions have more to do with temperance. When Mayol talks about the importance and place of wine for the residents of Croix-Rousse, he states that: “Wine intrinsically contains the possibility of drift, of a setback” (1990: 88), and this idea is valid also for prison inmates.

It should be noted that there are some differences among the political organizations inside prisons, and that for some, making wine is unacceptable behavior for a

109 Many prisoners with whom I corresponded stated that prison administrations had recently banned the sale of grapes, and that the food parcels had not contained grapes for a long time. As a result, the production of wine is shown.

110 This is a regular monthly procedure that is carried out by the prison administration with special guards called A-teams including a detailed investigation of the cell. 132 revolutionist. Other organizations, however, put no limitation on the production of wine on the condition that it be consumed in moderation.

Political prisoners act responsibly when it comes to alcohol with respect to temperance, and differentiate themselves from the ordinary prisoners by knowing their limits. I attended in a judge of execution in a prison campus in which the case of ordinary prisoners is pended. The case was held in a 30-person dormitory, with six people standing trial. The subject of the trial was the overconsumption of wine, in that in one night, the prisoners had attempted to drink four demijohns of wine that they made by themselves and were taken to the prison hospital. The judge was investigating how they had produced such a large amount of wine, and took the opportunity to point out that they did not know their the limits.

Such a “possibility of drift” is not possible for political prisoners. At first, the architecture of the prisons in which political prisoners are incarcerated prevents such activities. Accordingly, overproduction of wine is not possible in F-type prisons, where an extreme isolation model is applied. More importantly, the political organizations themselves do not allow things to take place. Like Mayol’s neighborhood, in the prisons, such organizations are a regulatory mechanism, and manifest themselves as the authority overseeing the consumption of wine. This has its source in the communal lives of the prisoners, where organizational relations do not allow otherwise. Gökçe, from the families, said that guards lend assistance to political organizations only reluctantly, although this assistance will only usually take the form of informing the contact person from the organization when there is a situation of drifting. In this way, the organization-neighborhood plays a regulatory role both between the members and the organizations, and by virtue of this regulatory mechanism, prisons reveal themselves as social places. Thanks to the neighborhood atmosphere established by political structures, political prisoners can benefit from this social place more easily, and it is this atmosphere, provided by political organizations inside the prisons, that helps them to penetrate the place of the other. What Mayol said for the neighborhood is valid for the political structures here: “A signature attesting to an origin, the neighborhood is inscribed in the history of the

133 subject like the mark of an indelible belonging inasmuch as it is the primary configuration, the archetype of every process of appropriation of space as a place for everyday public life.” (1990: 12). This can be translated to political organizations as such: The political organization is like a signature; it points out origin and carries a huge memory with it.

4.2.6. Handcrafts Handcrafts are a common activity among political prisoners, with some activities requiring manual dexterity and others necessitating technical knowledge, among other skills. This part of the study will deal with five different examples of tactical handcrafting carried out by political prisoners.

First, it is important to indicate a major principle stated by many of the interviewees: “no trash”. Ex-prisoners explained this principle laughing, saying that it continued to affect their lives after they were released. One of the interviewees recalled a caricature called Fırat, who was famous for his motto, “I can do something with it.”111 Toprak said that when he was freshman in prison, before throwing something out, he would ask a senior whether they could do something with it. He added that after release, his mind continued to work like that. Our dialogue during the interview was as follows: T: Nothing is thrown easily. Everything has its place. S: Then, no trash? T: It was strange. For example, tea packages. Especially the seniors do not throw anything easily. You know Fırat; he says I could do something with it. For example, especially at the beginning, I would not throw anything before asking an old prisoner. I would ask whether how we could use this (laughing). If he says yes we could use it, it is very likely true (laughing), something like that.112

111 See Appendix 4.

112 “T: Her şey, yani bir şey kolay kolay atılmaz. Her şey kullanılır. S: Çöp çıkmıyor o zaman? T: Çok ilginç şeyler çay ambalajları. Ne bileyim yani bilmiyorum. Özellikle eskiler hiçbir şeyi kolay kolay atmıyor. Hani Fırat diyor ya ben bunla bişey yaparım diye. Ben mesela başta özellikle, eski bir arkadaş vardı, ona sormadan atmıyordum yani. Bunu kullanacak bir yer var mı yok mu (gülüyor). Var diyorsa muhtemelen de var yani (gülüyor) yani öyle şeyler oluyor.” 134

This is the art of the weak having to use their creative intelligence to montage heterogeneous elements together.

The weak must continually turn to their own ends forces alien to them. This is achieved in the propitious moments when they are able to combine heterogeneous elements (1984: xix)

In this sense, the principle of “not trash” leads to the combining together of heterogeneous elements with a creative mind. Every single thing only gains its “status of trash” after many different processes.

The first example is the reuse of old clothes. Following the principle of “no trash”, clothes are used until they become garbage. The prisoners make bags or wallets from old jeans113; and from old moleskins they create winter vests. Items that finally become unusable go into the bin only after everyone gives their approval in the cell. For them, this approach to old clothes is a common practice among political prisoners that continues after their release.

Prisoners also use old clothes to change the appearance of bedcovers. At the outset, it will be helpful to understand the conditions in F-type prisons to look at the law and regulations. Article 15 of the Law on Execution of Penalties and Security Measures says “Convicts can keep the linens and blankets given to them by the administration. In addition, on the condition that it is bought from the canteen and approval is granted by the administration, inmates can stock bed sets and blankets in appropriate numbers with respect to climate conditions.” Since sourcing your own bed set or bed cover is prohibited, often their appearance is changed to personalize them, depending on the creativity of the prisoners. Changing what is received from the administration is another practice of political prisoners, which is the case for bed covers. Viyan says:

They [the administration] have to give our bed covers. Everything is on its own. We were used to change their colors by all means. I mean we change their pattern design or something like that. My friends surely do something on it. Or let’s say you have an old colored shirt, t-shirt or something like that. These things are cut and done something to the covers. I mean we do not use what they gave us. What

113 See Appendix-13. 135

they gave is definitely changed. Transformation, to change something is common things.114

Like a patchwork, the bedcovers are reorganized by the prisoners. The standard solid- colored covers given by the administration to all the prisoners is a form of intervention into the everyday life, in that the prisoners have no say in choosing the covers for their beds. In this sense, the reorganization of the covers using old clothes is an invisible and creative way of changing the situation for their own benefit. In the place of the other, with its covers and its objects, the prisoners produce something that is unique to them, going against the purpose of the administration.

The following example of a tactical maneuver is also related to the use of things one has to hand to produce something new. The regulations on items that can be kept in prisons state that prisoners cannot have sharp knives (for general cutting purposes). It says “every convict, on the condition that it is bought from the canteen, can possess a knife that is ten centimeters long and not tapered”, banning prisoners from possessing all other sharp objects. Obviously, sharp objects like knives or similar, are a necessity in prison for the preparation of food, the accumulation of news from the newspapers, making prison balls and cutting clothes. This leads prisoners to create their own handmade knives. As can be seen in Appendix-14, using a pilot pen and the blade from a pencil sharpener and with the help of a lighter, they produce a curved knife that looks like a pen, creating a multi-purpose object that takes the place of banned scissors or knives. The production method is as follows: first, the blade is unscrewed from a pencil sharpener, after which the end of a classic pilot penholder is burned using a cigarette lighter. The most delicate part of the process involves knowing that this part of the pen is made of plastic. When it melts, the razor is pushed into this part and pressed down. The prisoners must be careful to hide this new feature of the pen, and to do this, they always put the cover of the pen on the end, making it

114 “Biz mesela işte yatak örtülerimize mutlaka idare diyelim ki bize bişey veriyordu işte. Nevresim vesaire veriyordu. Her şey tek tekti. Biz mutlaka onların rengiyle oynardık. Yani onların deseniyle bişeyiyle mutlaka oynanırdı. Arkadaşlar ya üzerine işleme yapardı. Ya da işte diyelim ki eski renkli gömlek tişört vesaire şeyler varsa onlar kesilir ordan bir şey yapılır. Onların verdiği kalıp değildi yani o. O kalıp mutlaka dağılırdı. Mesela dönüşüm çok hani bişeyleri dönüştürerek yapma çok hakim bişeydi.” 136 look like as it has been used. The modification is imperceptible unless the guard makes a close inspection of the pen. This piece of equipment, Suphi Nejat says, is useful for cutting out newspaper articles or other texts that are deemed important, while in a de Certeauian sense, this is a warlike discovery that takes place within the order of the strong. In his words, these are the

clever tricks of the "weak" within the order established by the "strong," an art of putting one over on the adversary on his own turf, hunter's tricks, maneuverable, poly-morph mobilities, jubilant, poetic, and warlike discoveries. (1984: 40).

In the sense of cleverness and acquired experiences, the handmade knife is a subtle way of using what one to hand, and is a response of the prisoners to an administration that imposes certain models of consumption.

Another example of a tactical activity among political prisoners is the production of water filters. In prison, water is not always available, being delivered at set times every week. In particular, obtaining hot water is a major problem in F-type prisons, and according to the accounts of the prisoners, the water is generally full of foreign material and stones. Güneş explains the situation more clearly:

You know, the water is bad, something like stone appears. One of the friends made something to filter the water in his own way. Otherwise you cannot really wash your dishes or even use in the toilets. There appears stone in enormous sizes, it flows like a mud, there appear strange materials. Thus, it must be filtered. It is not for drinking of course. But you cannot use even in your other activities.115

Decanters crafted from demijohns is one method adopted by the prisoners to protect themselves from any health hazards associated with the prison water. The decanters are made in two different models. The first model is made as follows: a plastic bottle is cut to the appropriate size, and with a help of hot metal, perforations are made into

115 “Biliyorsun işte sular kötü, taş maş çıkıyor. Bir arkadaş yapmıştı işte kendince, süzüyordu. Yoksa hakkaten bulaşık yıkamaya, tuvalete falan bile kullanılacak gibi değil. Yani koca koca taş çıktığı da oldu, işte çamur gibi akıyor, başka şeyler çıkıyor. O yüzden süzmek gerekli. İçmek için değil zaten de işte başka işler için bile o su öyle kullanılmaz.”

137 the side of the bottle. A piece of old but clean cloth is applied to this perforated surface, creating a makeshift water filter.

The second model is applied to overcome problems related to water cuts, which may be experienced especially in the summer, and is described by Can:

In dungeons, the water flows blurred in winter, it is cut in the summer times. In the morning, you wash your face with the water you set aside last night. If you are a little creative, you can solve the problem. You put five liters plastic bottle to the edge of the sink upside down. Then, you make a hole in the appropriate place on the bottle. You take out the ballpoint pen refill and put its nib to the hole on the bottle. In order to make the pen not to fall down, you strengthen it with a gum. When the water comes, you fill the bottle. When you pull off the cap of the pen, the water flows and you can wash your hands and face. In this way you can solve the problem.116

The political prisoners in this way use their creative intelligence to overcome problems that may affect their health. These are fields of play where the users consume the given products (in this sense the plastic bottles) in a creative way for another purpose. The usage of technology here is an “art of living” in a de Certeauian sense due to its relationship with health. Under the conditions imposed by the administration, political prisoners develop protective maneuvers in order to maintain a healthy life. In spite of the poor conditions and the isolation, the main aim of which is total segregation from society and life, the prisoners do not give up, and find ways of coping. These coping mechanisms are referred to as tactical resistance, and can be considered survival politics of the residents of F-type prisons.

The final tactical example of handcrafting relates to illegal electricity. Other than lighting, all electricity used by the prisoners, such as for television and kettles, is paid for by the prisoners on a monthly basis. For long-standing prisoners in particular these bills are a burden, since they cannot work and earn money. One of the solutions adopted by political prisoners is illegal connections to the electricity system.

116 “Zindanda kışın su bulanık akar, yazın kesilir. Sabah yüzünü dün gece kaldırdığın kova suyuyla yıkarsın. Biraz yaratıcı olup sorunu çözersin. Lavabonun köşesine beş litrelik su petini başaşağı yerleştirirsin. Petin uygun görülen yerinde bir delik açarsın. Tükenmez kalemin içini çıkarıp başını açtığın deliğe yerleştirirsin. Kalemin petten düşmemesi için çiğnediğin sakızla sağlam hale getirirsin. Su geldiği zaman doldurursun. Kalemin arkasını açtığında su gelir ve sen elini yüzünü yıkarsın. Bu şekilde sorunu çözersin.” 138

As can be seen in the figure of triple cell in Appendix-8, there are two sockets on the lower floor, both of which are fee-paying: one under the TV and the other on the countertop. The cells that have illegal electricity connections use these sockets only for appearance, but surreptitiously connect to the grid through the free cables. As noted, lighting expenses in the cells are met by the state, and so the prisoners made electric connections to the cabling running to the light switches. They remove the switch cover to gain access to the cables, and connect using the wire of a clothespin or something similar. One ex-prisoner described the process and how they used it. He said that they only use the paid sockets when the guards or someone from the administration is in the block. All day, a kettle, for example, will be left on the stairway for use. Some of the cells put a shoe cabinet on the stairway “for ergonomic reasons”, although one interviewee reported that “of course, they [the guards] were unable to understand why we put these cabinets on the stairways. (Laughing) It is bullshit. In fact, they take up space. But they make it easy to use it [kettle].” The prisoners have to remove the kettle twice a day at roll-call (one in the morning and one in the evening). When the guards come to the cell, they unplug the kettle and take it to the countertop near the socket that is fee-paying. What the prisoners are doing here is working around the rules and laws. They continue to pay a monthly bill for electricity, but use free electricity where possible, reducing the bill at the end of the month. This practice of connecting to the free electricity supply in the cells is a cheerful activity for the prisoners, in that they know that they are deceiving the administration within its own domain. The administration, which claims that it controls everything through technological devices and human resource, fails to manage the illegal practices of prisoners. As Erdoğan discusses:

These practices, which disrupt the meaning, escape from the meaning rewrite and stamp the traces of the things which escape from the authority of the power that covers everything but is not included. They rejoin permanently the mentality of a cheerful, trickery and playful unmanageability. (Erdoğan, 2000:9).

This unmanageable (it is unmanageable, in that to resolve the problem the administration would have to cut off the electricity altogether) and invisible (invisible

139 to the administration) activity of the prisoners deceives the administration, despite its efforts to control everything in the cells.

To recapitulate it all, in this chapter we dealt with the tactics of the political prisoners under the categories of everyday life in F-type prisons. Those categories were extracted from the fieldwork which was handled with prisoners, ex-prisoners, lawyers and families. The fieldwork is composed of semi-structured interviews and correspondings with the prisoners from F-types. The key aspects of the tactics are the tools for understanding the prisoners’ everyday resistance practices. These aspects are: belonging to the space of other, invisibility, trickery and creativity. In accordance with these tools, we analyzed the practices of reading, doing sports, drawing/painting, communicating, doing cooking and beverage and lastly handcrafting.

The first feature of the concept of tactic is belonging to the space of other. De Certeau puts this aspect as a major differentiating point of the tactic from the concept of strategy. He states that “the place of a tactic belongs to the other. A tactic insinuates itself into the other's place, fragmentarily, without taking it over in its entirety, without being able to keep it at a distance.” (1984: xix). In that sense, F-types are the places where the individuals in the true sense of the word are in the place of other with its architecture and regulations. In addition, political prisoners in those places have to do more to protect their political identity which is not recognized by the administration/state. The everyday lives of the prisoners are shaped with respect to this need of coping with both the problems that all F-types have and political issues which affect them most. Like in the examples of exercising and painting, the political prisoners change the existing conditions on behalf of themselves in the place of other.

The second feature of the tactic is the invisibility. This aspect of tactic is related with the first feature which is related with place. De Certeau remarks that it is invisible “since it shows itself not in its own products (where would it place them?) but in an art of using those imposed on it” (1984:31). As aforementioned, F-types are

140 monitored with many cameras surrounding everywhere and also everything that enters to those places are searched with high technology machines. In such places, the prisoners have to use their creative intelligence in invisible way to overcome some basic problems. Connecting illegal electricity, communicating via holes and crafting a handmade knife must be happen in invisible way. Since the tactic in its essence cannot store what it created, when those practices become visible, the prisoners develop a new way of coping with the problems.

In F-types, the invisibility requires trickery and cleverness which is the third aspect of the tactic. When de Certeau talks about tactics he uses the words “trickery”, “cleverness”, “deception”, “poaching”, “using opportunities” and “playing”. In his words “in contrast, trickery is possible for the weak, and often it is his only possibility, as a ‘last resort’” (1984: 37). It is because in such controlled and visible places the invisibility which is vital for survival in both physical and political sense can be provided by a creative intelligence and trickery. Replacing the kettle during the day and making prison balls for communication are the illustration of this aspect of the tactic. These are the ways of using opportunities with what is imposed on them.

The last feature of the tactic is the creativity. This characteristic is associated with de Certeau’s definition of the consumption. For him, the consumption is not just consuming and removing what is given to the individuals. Differentiating from the behaviors of sheep which just graze what is given to them, the individuals in the process of consumption produce a new thing. This is the second production as called by de Certeau. It is because the thing which is transformed and consumed by the individuals/prisoners is itself a product before the process of consumption. In short, every tactical practice, like in the handcrafting issue of the political prisoners who transform their old clothes for making new things, is a creation.

All in all, the analysis of the everyday life of the political prisoners is made according to those conceptual tools of de Certeau. The tactics of the political prisoners reflect the coping mechanisms of them which are related both their survival in those conditions and their political existence in those places.

141

CHAPTER V

5. CONCLUSION

How do we become – what kinds of – subjects? What is the place of resistance within this process? What does “resisting subject” mean? Is there only one kind of resistance practice or are those practices formed by multiplicity? Could we talk about such practices that the power does not know or that are hidden from it? Is the moment of resisting a special moment or does it penetrate the time, the whole life? How could we place the position of the prisons within those relations; does it cover a special space? Those are the questions that we dealt with in this study.

This study which aimed to identify the place of resistance against to the power focused on the tactical resistance practices. As a theoretical framework, Michel de Certeau’s literature on everyday resistance and tactical practices was used. In de Certeauian sense, tactics, i.e. daily resistance practices, are productive and creative activities. Unlike some pessimistic theories that emerged after the World War II, de Certeau takes it from an optimistic perspective and does not start with concrete presuppositions. He changes the question “why the masses do not revolt against all these cruelties and oppression” to “how the masses deal with those cruelties and oppression”. In other words, de Certeau deconstructs what the first type question expounds. According to de Certeau, the masses naturally oppose and resist but not in an expected way, they find another way to cope with the system. This is because they put a different resistance practice to the stage, called tactical practices. De Certeau, different than the other theories which take the consumption as a passive action, takes this practice of transformation to its focus point. For him, the consumption itself is a tactical practice. He identifies the consumption as such:

an entirely different kind of production, called "consumption" and characterized by its ruses, its fragmentation (the result of the circumstances), its poaching, its 142

clandestine nature, its tireless but quiet activity, in short by its quasi-invisibility, since it shows itself not in its own products (where would it place them?) but in an art of using those imposed on it.” (de Certeau, 1984: 31)

This activity which has to “use those imposed on it” within the place of other is the definition of tactic in one sense. There is a focus on the production aspect of the activity and also on the transformation feature of those practices. As Moran puts it, de Certeau “means consumption in its broadest sense rather than simply buying and using of consumer products.” (2005: 10)

According to de Certeau, the other practices which can be counted as the tactical practices are la perruque (time, product, machines, etc.), making do, reading, speaking, games, tales, wits and some practices related with conforming. For him, those practices which cover our daily lives, are the places of revealing of “the dispersed, tactical, and make-shift creativity of groups or individuals already caught in the nets of ‘discipline.’”(1984: xiv). These practices indicate a space of game. De Certeau describes this art of being in between which took place in this space as follows:

He [a North African living in Paris] super-imposes them and, by that combination, creates for himself a space in which he can find ways of using the constraining order of the place or of the language. Without leaving the place where he has no choice but to live and which lays down its law for him, he establishes within it a degree of plurality and creativity. By an art of being in between, he draws unexpected results from his situation. (1984: 30)

Here what de Certeau pointed out as “constraining order of the place”; i.e. “the place where he has no choice but to live” is the definition of the prisons for the political prisoners. The daily practices of the political prisoners in such places set the examples of this “art of being in between”. They succeed this by transforming the place and the situation in their own favor within those places. F-type prisons as limited places get changed in the tactical manner.

Those incarceration places are both social spaces and also are one of the apparatuses of the state. F-type prisons, with its regulations, physical structure and its sui generis order, are the reflections of the space of power in real and symbolic sense. This type

143 prison officially swallows what it takes inside. It is the space of the other, of the power. Different than the other institutions, the prison as an institution directly and totally attempts to the individuals’ everyday life. Unlike the other institutions like schools, hospitals, etc. where the power has discontinuous interventions, in prisons, especially in F-types, these interventions are perpetual. After the arrestment, the individuals are subjected to those places as far as the power demanded in the way it shaped. Thus, there is an inevitable intervention to the everyday life according to the logic of the prison itself. This inevitability creates its own overcomes. However, this is not instinctive practice without any subject/agent. As de Certeau claimed, there is a creative production here.

In accordance with the gist of the thesis, the motivation of the study has come from curiosity about the coping mechanisms in such incarceration places where intense isolation model is applied and there are limited conditions to resist such a model. “Operation Return to Life” in 2000 was a turning point both for the incarceration mentality of the state and for the political organizations themselves. Firstly, it was a new understanding and a new way of punishment based on isolation and more focus on the mind. Secondly, for the political organizations before 2000, prisons are the ordinary places in which the organizational activities are maintained. Thus, for a political organization, to cut the relation between the inside and outside and intervention to their everyday life have really negative effects. A vast majority of the political prisoners resisted not to go those places. After the operation, in their new places they continued their resistance to return to the ward system. However, at the same time, they started to get to know these new places. Over the years, the political prisoners have developed many practices which are related with their coping mechanism. They have turned F-types into livable places. This act of “turning into” is the result of such trivial, taken for granted daily activities as de Certeau called tactical everyday practices. The type of the practices which are exemplified in this study is taken as the tactical everyday resistance practices provided that they adapt to conceptual tools of the study. These tools come from the definition of tactic of de Certeau who mainly considered it with respect to its relation with space and its features of invisibility, trickery and creativity. This type of coping mechanisms is the 144 common survival politics of the political prisoners in F-type prisons. These coping mechanism are analyzed within some categories which reflect the everyday lives of the political prisoners. Since the sayings of the interviewees are centered upon some of the daily activities, the tactical practices of the political prisoners are analyzed within these categories. Without a doubt, this research makes no pretentions to cover and reflect the everyday life of the political prisoners and their coping mechanism. However, by trying to give meaning to the daily practices of the political prisoners, it will be a complementary work to the existing everyday resistance and prison literatures and also a stimulating research on the concerned area of the literature.

Before concluding, it is important to touch upon a significant debate related with the definition of the resistance: to what degree is the definition of resistance be extended? In other words, the problematization can be enriched with the questions of whether there is an ethical and legitimate limit to call these everyday life acts as resistance practices; how does the notion of resistance in “everyday life resistance” differentiate itself from the definition of classical resistance; what are the borders of the definition of resistance. In Chapter-II and Chapter-IV, we dealt with these questions in detail. In order to be clear, the concept of tactic and everyday resistance is handled with reference to major features of the concepts. These features of the concept of tactic delimit the scope of resistance. Moreover, as de Certeau lays emphasis on, these everyday practices are the art of the oppressed. In de Certeau’s words, they are the “art of the weak”. That is, in addition to the determining feature of the concepts, the emphasis on the side of the oppressed is an important criterion to demarcate the resistance practices from the other activities in everyday life. However, the ambiguousness and heterogeneity of the everyday life may result in lying beyond the limits of the definition of resistance. In this case, the political stance of the individuals and the context of the discussion will be the determining factors.

Last but not least, this study definitely does not claim that the death fast and connecting illegal electricity are the resistance practices of the same kind. However, as in the case of extending the meaning of resistance to any single activity in everyday life, confining it to such overt and great practices and events will be a serious fault.

145

In that sense, by keeping the point of everyday resistance literature, while analyzing the practices of the political prisoners in F-types, the concept of “everyday resistance” and “tactic” are used rather than just the concept of “resistance”.

As can be understood from the crux of the thesis, tactical resistance is a powerful resistance practice which comes from the life itself. This understanding of everyday life puts the human beings back the nature where they belong. This is the history of living things as de Certeau states “they go much further back, to the immemorial intelligence displayed in the tricks and imitations of plants and fishes. From the depths of the ocean to the streets of modern megalopolises, there is a continuity and permanence in these tactics”. (1984: xx). From fishes to the metropoles, from housewives to prisons, those practices pervade everywhere and create new fields for the oppressed.

5.1. Research Gaps and Further Research Avenues This study, no doubt, has many gaps which can be filled by further researches. One of the gaps emerges from the position of the researcher. The researcher of this thesis is a person from outside. What can be said about the prisons by the researcher is limited because of the lack of experience of those places. Thus, those places must be handled by the prisoners themselves to reveal the reality of the places accurately. When the restrictions and limitations which are settled by the administrations and Ministry are added, it becomes more difficult to reflect the reality of those places.

We did not have a chance to interview directly with the political prisoners inside. This obstructed to reveal many important tactical practices. In addition, ex-prisoners with whom I interviewed had difficulty to remember their daily activities and coping behaviors in front of problems arose in the prisons.

As a researcher, I do not have a prison experience which makes me an individual totally from the outside. This creates some problems during the writing process of the thesis. Firstly, I had to get to know the reality of such places from the beginning, from its architecture to usage of those places by the prisoners. Over and above, there 146 is a risk of catching the important points due to being outsider. In order to minimize the bad effects of being an outsider, I contacted with the ex-prisoners during the writing process, asking them to correct me about the transfer of the practices.

In this research, since we focused on F-type prisons where only the male prisoners stay, we could not examine the practices of women and other genders in those incarceration places. As said before, there are special type prisons for women both in open and closed systems in Turkey in different cities. The open prisons for women are in Denizli, Adana and Eskişehir. The closed type prisons for women are in Ankara, İzmir, İstanbul, Kocaeli, Bursa and Mersin. They are mixed prisons which contain both isolation model and dormitory system. Apart from these, some ‘type prisons’ like D, E are used to accommodate the women prisoners. In short, unlike male prisons, there is not a uniform prison system for women. It is not surprising that the political women prisoners are kept in the places where the isolation model is applied. In those closed prisons, there are single and triple cells like in F-type prisons in which the conditions do not differ. For LGBTI+ individuals, there is no special type prison. They are mostly accommodated according to their physical appearances. This situation creates many violations of human rights. This thesis absolutely accepts that the prisons are the gendered places and without this dimension any analysis will be deficient. However, together with the time lack, in order to prevent focus shift, the existing study mainly focused on the tactical practices of the political prisoners merely in male prisons (because in F-types only males are kept) without making any comparison between the genders. Thus, everyday life and tactical practices of other genders must be examined in other studies so that we can get a bigger profile of the prison system of Turkey.

Throughout the thesis, we focused on side of the political prisoners. However, the prisons in Turkey accommodate a huge mass of ordinary prisoners. They are approximately 170.000. Especially, for our subject of analysis, it will be very explanatory to look from the other side of the issue.

147

There are many sides in the issue of prisons. One of which is the administration side. Those places must be analyzed also from this dimension which will give us the meaning and effects of these tactical practices for the power.

148

REFERENCES

Ackerson, L. (1941). [Review of the book The Prison Community, by Donald Clemmer] Socail Forces. 19 (3):442-443.

Adak, U. (2006). XIX. Yüzyılın Sonları XX. Yüzyılın Başlarında Aydın Vilayetindeki Hapishaneler. Master Thesis, Ege Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Tarih Anabilim Dalı.

Agger, B. (1998). Critical Social Theories: An Introduction.Westview Press.

Ahnert, R. (2013). The Rise of Prison Literature in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Akbaş, M. (2011). Mamak Kitabı: Biz Bir Orduya Kafa Tuttuk Arkadaş. Ayizi Kitap, Ankara

Akın, M. M. (2010). Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Mevzuatı Açısından Türkiye'deki Cezaevi Uygulamaları. Master Thesis, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı.

Arikan, A. U. (2014). Büyük Tutsaklık. Yazılama Yayınevi, İstanbul.

Arslan, S. (2011). The Psychological Profiles of Ex-Prisoner Torture Survivors Who Served in Diyarbakır Prison between the Years of 1980-1984. Master Thesis, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Psikoloji Anabilim Dalı

Ata, A. (2008). Ülkemiz Özelliklerine Uygun Cezaevi Ziyaretçi Görüşme İç Mekan Biçimlenmesi Tasarım Örnekleri. PhD Thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İç Mimarlık ve Çevre Tasarımı Anasanat Dalı.

Ay, A. (2010). Resistance in Everyday Life: Coping with the Smoking Ban in the Case of Nevizade. Master Thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı.

149

Aydemir, Ş. S. (1971). Suyu Arayan Adam. Remzi Kitabevi. İstanbul.

Aydın, İ. (2010). Cezaevi Hükümlülerinin Yalnızlık Düzeyleri ve Ruhsal Belirti Düzeyleri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Master Thesis, Maltepe Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Psikoloji Anabilim Dalı / Klinik Psikoloji Bilim Dalı

Aysu, T. (2015). Turning Ulucanlar Prison to Ulucanlar Prison Museum: The Politics Of Creating A Memory Place. Master Thesis, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

Baer, L. D. & Ravneberg, B. (2008). “The Outside and Inside in Norwegian and English Prisons”. Geografiska Annaler B, 90(2):205−216. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111%2Fj.1468-0467.2008.00287.x

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984) Rabelais and His World. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans. Vern W. McGee. Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Towards A Philosophy of the Act. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bargu, B. (2010). “Spectacles of Death: Dignity, Dissent and Sacrifice in Turkey’s Prisons” in Policing and Prisons in the Middle East eds, Khalili, L. And Schwedler, J.

Bayat, A. (1997a). Street Politics: Poor Peoples Movements in Iran. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bayat, A. (1997b). "Un-Civil Society: The Politics of the 'Informal People'". Third World Quarterly (London: Taylor and Francis). 18(1):53–72.

Bayat, A. (2010). Life as Politics: How Ordinary People Change the Middle East. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

150

Benasayag M. & Aubenas F. (2008). Direnmek Yaratmaktır. Versus Yayınları, İstanbul.

Bilbaşar, S. (2000). “Hapishaneden Cezaevine”. Birikim.

Bosworth, M., Campbell, D., Demby, B., Ferranti, S. M., Santos, M. (2005). “Doing Prison Research: Views From Inside”. Qualitative Inquiry. (11):249-264.

Bozkurt, N. (2012). “General Status of Kütahya Prison in The Early 19th Century”. The Journal of International Social Research.

Butler, J. (1997). The Psychic Life of Power. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 218. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XuJlkAMjQK4C

Butz, D. & Ripmeester M. (1999). “Finding Space for Resistant Subcultures”. Invisible Culture. (2):1-16.

Can, B. (2015). Türkiye’de Siyasi Mahkumların Kapatılması ve F-tipi Cezaevleri. Öteki Yayınevi, İstanbul.

Canel, P. (2003). Türkiye'de Cezaevleri ve F-tipi uygulaması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Kamu Yönetimi Ana Bilim Dalı. Danışman: Namık Kemal Öztürk.

Certeau, M. de (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Certeau, M. de, Giard, L. & Mayol, P. (1998). The Practice of Everyday Life, Vol. 2: Living and Cooking. The Regents of the Uni\'ersity of Minnesota.

Clemmer, D. (1940). The Prison Community. The Christopher Publiahing Company

Cohen, S. (1985). “Crime and Politics: Spot the Difference” . The British Journal of Sociology. 47(1):1-21

151

Crewe, B. (2007). “The Sociology of Imprisonment” in Handbook on Prisons. 123- 151 (Routledge)

Çelik, H. (2008). A Sociological Analysis of Female Criminals in the Denizli Open Prison. Master Thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Sosyoloji Bölümü / Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı / Sosyoloji Bilim Dalı.

Çiçen, A. (2010). II. Meşrutiyet Dönemi Cezaevi Islahatı. Master Thesis, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Tarih Bölümü / Tarih Anabilim Dalı.

Deleuze, G. (1992). “Prostscript on the Societies of Control”. October, 59:3-7. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/778828

Demirbaş, T. (2005). “Hürriyeti Bağlayıcı Cezaların ve Cezaevlerinin Evrimi”, Hapishane Kitabı, ed by Naskali and Altun, İstanbul.

Demirbaş, T. (2008). İnfaz Hukuku. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara.

Demirkol, K. (2012). II. Meşrutiyet Döneminde Edirne Vilayeti Hapishaneleri. Master Thesis, Sakarya Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Tarih Anabilim Dalı / Tarih Bilim Dalı.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Dimitriu, I. (1994). “The Trickster and the Prison House: The Bakhtinian Dimension of ‘the Carnivalesque in Breyten Breytenbach’s True Confessions of an Albino Terrorist”. Literator. 16(1):127-138.

Dimitriu, I. (2000). “A Bakhtinian Reading of Prison Writing”. British and American Studies. 5(1):94- 107.

Ercebe, C. (2007). Sosyo-kültürel Açıdan Suçu Meşrulaştırma Eğilimleri Üzerine Ankara Cezaevinde Bir Çalışma. Master Thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı

152

Erdoğan, N. (1999). “Devleti İdare Etmek: ‘Maduniyet ve Düzenbazlık’”. Toplum ve Bilim.

Eren, M. (2014). Kapatılmanın Patolojisi: Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Hapishanenin Tarihi. Kalkedon, İstanbul.

Ergüden, I. (2007). Hapishane Çağı: Kapatılan İnsan. Versus Kitap, İstanbul.

Erkut, A. Ç. (2003). Associates of Social Deviancy and Violence Among Prisoners. Master Thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Psikoloji Anabilim Dalı.

Feeley, M. & Simon J. (1992). “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications.” Criminology. 30(4): 449-474.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.

Gardiner, M. (2000). Critiques of Everyday Life. London and New York: Routledge.

Garland, D. (1990) Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gaye, B. (2015). Female Offender's Attitudes Towards Gender and Violence and Their Violence Experiences: Sincan Women's Prison. PhD Thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı.

Gazel, A. A. (2005). "Tanin Muhabiri Ahmet Şerif Bey'in Notlarında Osmanlı Hapishaneleri", Hapishane Kitabı, ed by Naskali and Altun, Babil Yayınları, s. 143-151, İstanbul.

Gençer, A. D. (2014). Coping Mechanisms and Emotions through the Narratives of the Ex-Prisoners in Diyarbakir Prison (1980-1984). Master Thesis, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Klinik Psikoloji Anabilim Dalı

153

Gilliom J. & Monahan T. (2012). “Everyday Resistance”. Routlage Handbook of Surveillance Studies, London & New York.

Gregory, D. (2006). “The Black Flag: Guantánamo Bay and the Space of Exception”. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography. 88(4):405-427.

Gürtuna, O. (2009). Cezaevinde Kadın Olmak ve Cezaevinin Kadın Bakış Açısıyla Sosyolojik Değerlendirmesi: Ankara Sincan Kadın Kapalı Cezaevi Örneği. Master Thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Sosyoloji Bölümü / Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı / Sosyoloji Bilim Dalı

Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. D. (2012). “When Prisoners Take Over the Prison: A Social Psychology of Resistance”. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 16(2):154–179.

Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.

Hollander, J. A. & Einwohner, R. L. (2004). Conceptualizng Resistance. Sociological Forum, 19:4, 533–554.

Holloway, J. (2005). Change the World Without Taking Power: The Meaning of Revolution Today. Pluto Press,London.

Huidobro, F. E. & Rosencof, M. (1993). Duvardaki Sarmaşık Gibi. Belge Yayınları, İstanbul.

Hür, A. (2009). “Suç Ceza, Hapishaneler ve İmralı”, Taraf, 30 Ağustos 2009

Ignatieff, M. (1978). A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850. Pantheon Books.

Jewkes, Y. & Johnston, H. (2007). “The Evolution of Prison Architecture”, Handbook of Prisons, ed by Jewkes, Y. New York.

Karaali, M. (2008). Gorkin’nin Gitarı. Umut Yayımcılık, İstanbul.

154

Kerkvliet, B. J. T. (2009). "Everyday Politics in Peasant Society (and Ours)". Journal of Peasant Studies. 36(1):227-243.

Kızılkan, A. Ö. (2011). Osmanlı'da Kadın Hapishaneleri Ve Kadın Mahkûmlar (1839-1922). PhD Thesis, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü / Kamu Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı.

Koca, U. (2015). 17 Numaralı Kalebend Defterine Göre Hicri 1182-1188 (M.1768- 1774) Yılları Arasında Osmanlı Devletinde Suç, Suçlu, Hapishaneler Ve Cezalar. Master Thesis: Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Tarih Anabilim Dalı / Yeniçağ Tarihi Bilim Dalı.

Kök, S. (2011). “Kent Yoksullarının Farklı Siyasallaşma Biçimleri: Bir Alan Araştırması Örneği”.

Kurt, M. (2006). Türkiye’de Ceza İnfaz Kurumlarının Sorunları. Master Thesis, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kamu Hukuku Anabilim Dalı.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications.

Lacombe, D. (1996). “Reforming Foucault: A Crtitique of the Social Control Thesis”. The British Journal of Sociology. 47(2):332-52.

Leblanc, L. (1999). Pretty in Punk: Girls' Gender Resistance in a Boys' Subculture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers.

Lefebvre, H. (2006). Critique of Everyday Life III: From Modernity to Modernism - Towards a Metaphilosophy of the Quotidien. Verso, London.

Mahdi, A. A. (1999). [Review of the book Street Politics: Poor People’s Movements in Iran by Asef Bayat]. Middle East Studies (31). 657-58.

155

Matthews, R. (1999). Doing Time: An Introduction to the Sociology of Imprisonment. St. Martin's Press, New York.

McEvoy, K. McConnachie, K. &Jamieson, R. (2007). “Political Imprisonment and the ‘War on Terror.’”. Handbook of Prisons, 293–323.

Medina, J. (2012). The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations. Studies in Feminist Philosophy.

Melossi, D. & Pavarini, M. (1981). The Prison and the Factory: Origins of the Penitentiary System. Macmillan, London.

Mete, T. (1987). İnfaz Hukuku. Adalet Bakanlığı Eğitim Dairesi Başkanlığı Yayınları, Yarıaçık Cezaevi Matbaası, Ankara.

Moran, J. (2005). Reading the Everyday. Routledge, London & New York.

Muratyan, N. (2011). Türkiyeli Ermenilerde Kolektif Korku: Gündelik Hayatta Korku Altında Varolma Pratikleri. Master Thesis, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kültürel İncelemeler Yüksek Lisans Programı

O’Neil, J. (1986). “The Disciplinary Society: From Weber to Foucault”. The British Journal of Sociology. 37(1):42-60.

Oral, T. (2012). Avrupa ve Birleşmiş Milletler Temelindeki Anlaşmaların Türkiye'deki Cezaevi Reformu Sürecindeki Yeri: Türk Yasal Sisteminde F-Tipi Cezaevi Uygulamasında Ülke İçindeki Dinamiklere Karşı Dışsal Girdilerin Etkilerinin Bir Değerlendirmesi. Master Thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Uluslararası İlişkiler Anabilim Dalı.

Oral, Z. (2013). Direniş ve Umut Reha İsvan. Metis Yayınları, İstanbul.

Oran, B. (2005). Nerede O Eski Mahpushaneler. İletişim Yayıncılık, İstanbul.

156

Öztoklu, S. (2015). “Emniyet” in Kaktüsler Susuz da Yaşar,37-48. DipnotYayınları, Ankara.

Öztürk, N. (2005). “Osmanlı’da Hapsetme Olayları”, Hapishane Kitabı, ed by Naskali and Altun, İstanbul.

Öztürk, Ş. (2004). Türkiye Solunun Hapishane Tarihi. Yar Yayınları, İstanbul.

Rfaizadeh, M. (2011). [Review of the book Life as Politics- How Ordinary People Change the Middle Eas,t by Asef Bayat]. Stanfors University Press. 461-466.

Reich, W. (1970). The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Qualitative Research. doi:10.4135/9781452230108

Rhodes, L. (1998). “Panoptical Intimacies”. Public Culture, 10(2), 285–311.

Rusche, G. & Kircheimer, O. (1939). Punishment and Social Structure, Columbia University Press, New York

Rüzgar, N. (2014). “Karnaval Kategorilerinden Minyatür İmgelerine”. Retrieved from http://www.e-skop.com/skopbulten/karnaval-kategorilerinden-minyatur- imgelerine/2255

Schull, K. F. (2014). Prisons in the Late Ottoman Empire: Microcosms of Modernity. Edinburgh University Press.

Scott, J. C. (1976). The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. Yale University.

Scott, J. C. (1984). Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance, New Haven: Yale University Press.

157

Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press.

Scott, J. C. (1989). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University Press.

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Sertel, S. (1969). Roman Gibi. Ant Yayınları, İstanbul.

Sevimli, G. A. (2010). Hayata Dönüş Operasyonu: Koğuştan Hücrelere. Çağdaş Hukukçular Derneği Yayınları, İstanbul.

Shalloo, J. P. (1941). [Review of the book The Prison Community, by Donald Clemmer]. American Sociological Review, 6 (5), 766-767.

Simi, P. & Futurell, R. (2009). "Negotiating White Power Activist Stigma”. Social Problems 56 (1), 89-110.

Soothill, K. (2007). “Prison Histories and Competing Audiences” in Handbook on Prisons. 27-48 (Routledge)

Sullivan, R. R. (1996). “The Birth of the Prison: Discipline or Punish?”. Journal of Criminal Justice. 24 (5), 449-458

Sykes, G. M. (1958). The Society of Captives-A Study of a Maximum Security Prison. Princeton: Princeton Univercity Press.

Kabaağaçlı, C. Ş. (1998). Mavi Sürgün. Bilgi Yayınevi, Ankara.

Şen, Ö. (2007). Osmanlı'da Mahkûm Olmak Avrupalılaşma Sürecinde Hapishaneler. Kapı yayınları, İstanbul.

158

Thompson, C. & Wall A. (1993). “Cleaning up Bakhtin’s Carnival Act”. Diacritics. 23(2):47-70

Torun, B. A. (2015). “Mamak’ta Yaşam” in Kaktüsler Susuz da Yaşar, 15-36. DipnotYayınları, Ankara.

Ugelvik, T. (2014). “Prison Ethnography as Lived Experience: Notes From the Diaries of A Beginner Let Loose in Oslo Prison”. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(241), 471–480. Retrieved from http://qix.sagepub.com/content/20/4/471.full.pdf+html

Wulbert, R. (1965). “Inmate Pride in Total Institutions”. American Journal of Sociology. 71(1):1-9

Vinthagen, S. & Johansson, A. (2013). “’Everyday Resistance’: Exploration of a Concept and its Theories”. Resistance Studies Magazine. No:1.

Yanardağ, P. (2009). The Epidemic, the Prison House and the Global City: Belonging and İdentity in Bayrampaşa. Master Thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Sosyoloji Bölümü / Sosyoloji Anabilim Dalı

Yarkın, G. (2013). Coping Mechanisms and Emotions of The Ex-convicts in Diyarbakir Prison. Master Thesis, İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi / Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Klinik Psikoloji Anabilim Dalı

Yıldız, G. (2002). Osmanlı Devleti'nde Hapishane Islahatı (1839-1908). Basılmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.

Yıldız, P. (2012). O Hep Aklımda. Ayizi Yayınları, İstanbul.

Yıldız, R. (2009). İçeri’den. Literatür Yayınları, İstanbul.

http://bianet.org/biamag/politics/90622-rakel-dinks-letter-to-the-loved-one

159

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/cezaevlerinde-yuzde-234luk-artis-28629147

http://t24.com.tr/haber/mahkum-sayisi-yuzde-250-artti-hukumet-165-cezaevi- yapacak,325379

https://www.egm.gov.tr/EN/Pages/terrorism.aspx

http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/siyaset/525743/Cezaevi_raporundan_cok_car pici_rakamlar__AKP_doneminde_yuzde_211_artis.html

http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/alaattin-cakici-cezaevinde-mudurun-kaburgasini- kirmis-1489659

https://www.yarinabakis.com/2016/05/02/hukumet-5-milyar-liraya-64-yeni- cezaevi-yapacak/

http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/turkey

160

APPENDICIES

APPENDIX-1 Interview Questions

a) For ex-prisoners:

# First group questions (on general information about F-type prisons and its architecture):

1) What is the first image that comes to your mind about prisons? What does it evoke to you? (Hapishane ile ilgili aklınıza gelen ilk imge nedir? Size neler çağrıştırıyor?)

- We know that in the prisons of Turkey being a prisoner is difficult. But these are the special places where important struggles are given. What would you like to say about this issue? (Türkiye hapishanelerinde mahpus olmak zordur. Sizin söylediklerinizden de çok kolay bir şekilde anlaşılıyor zaten. Ama bir taraftan da çok önemli mücadelelerin verildiği “özel” mekânlar. Bu konuda ne söylemek istersiniz?)

- Of course, there may be some memoirs that you do not want to remember. But these places were the centers of struggle in many periods. What do you think about it? (Hatırlamak istemediğiniz birçok an vardır elbette. Ama bir taraftan da birçok zaman mücadelenin merkezi haline de gelmişlerdir. Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?)

161

yerler (hem iktidar hem de özellikle siyasi mahpuslar açısından). Mimarisi hakkında ve “içerisi” hakkında hem “güvenlik” gerekçesi ile hem de yeni olmasından kaynaklı çok fazla bilgi bulunmuyor. Aklınızda kalanlardan, mimarisi ve “içerisi” hakkında biraz bilgi verebilir misiniz?)

- For example, when a person enters to an F-type, in what place does he117 find himself? Till he reaches to his, from where does he pass; what kinds of places are they? (Mesela bir kişi F-tipine girdiğinde mimari olarak kendini nasıl bir yapının içinde bulur? Hücresine gidene kadar nasıl bir yerden, nerelerden geçer?)

- Could you describe the place in detail? (Mekânı ayrıntılı anlatabilir misiniz?)

- Could you describe the places of the staff? (Eşyaların yerini tarif edebilir misiniz?

3) Have you experienced dormitory system? If yes, what are the differences/similarities between dormitory system and F-types? (Koğuş Tipi hapishaneleri de deneyimlediniz mi? Deneyimlediyseniz, F-tipleri ile aralarında nasıl bir fark var?)

- I ask both for everyday life practices and struggle itself? (Hem gündelik hayat pratikleri açısından hem de mücadele açısından soruyorum.)

- For example, practice of communication, cooking, painting, etc. (Örneğin, iletişim, yemek, resim pratikleri açısından)

- What do you think about the establishment of F-type prisons? Do you think that there was a political or other reason? (F-tiplerinin uygulamaya konmasıyla ilgili ne düşünüyorsunuz? Altında siyasi ya da başka bir neden olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?)

117 We used “he” because for now F-types are used only for men. There are isolation model for women and other genders but these are not called F-types. 162

- What do you think about the future of prisons (especially F-type prisons)? (Genel olarak Türkiye’de hapishanelerin, özelde de F-tiplerinin geleceği hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?)

# Second group questions on the definition of being political prisoner and on the meaning of struggle and resistance:

4) In Turkey, there is no political prisoner status which is recognized by the law. What do you think about that? (Türkiye’de yasalarla tanınmış bir “siyasi mahkûm” statüsü ya da ayrımı yok. Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?)

- Could you make a definition of political prisoner? (“‘Siyasi tutsak’ tanımı yapabilir misiniz?)

- What are the differences between the ordinary prisoner and political prisoner? (Siyasi tutsak ve adli tutuklu/hükümlü arasında nasıl farklılıklar var?)

- What are differences of political prisoners from the right wing prisoners? (Siyasi tutsağı sağ kanat tutuklu/hükümlülerden ayıran farklar nelerdir?)

5) Could you talk about your relations with the other prisoners? (Diğer mahkûmlarla ilişkinizden biraz bahsedebilir misiniz?)

- You have stayed with them for many years in those incarceration places. How did you succeed it? (O kadar yıl beraber, kapalı bir ortamda kalmak kolay olmasa gerek. Bunu nasıl başardınız?)

- In those closed places, in a forced situation, did living together create problem? How did you overcome it? (Kapalı bir ortamda, bazen zorunluluk dolayısıyla, birlikte yaşamak sorunlar ortaya çıkardı mı? Nasıl üstesinden geldiniz?)

- How was your relationship with ordinary prisoners? (Ad(l)i mahkûmlarla ilişkileriniz nasıldı?)

- F-type prisons accommodate political prisoners from many different organizations. How was your relationship with those prisoners? Were there 163

any limitations or impositions that your or other organizations insist on? (Hapishaneler farklı örgüt/hareket’e mensup siyasi mahkûm barındırıyor. Siz siyasi bir mahkûmdunuz. Diğer örgütlerle/fraksiyonlarla aranız nasıldı? Bu konuda karşı tarafın ya da sizin dayatmalarınız ya da koyduğunuz zorunluluklar (gündelik hayatla ilgili olabilir) oluyor muydu?)

6) How was your relation with the administration? (Yönetimle aranız nasıldı?)

-It is predictable that it was not a good relation. But, prison administration is the authority that prisoners have to apply for their bureaucratic issues. How did you experience that? (Siyasilerle aralarının çok iyi olmadığı tahmin edilebilir bir şey. Ama bir taraftan taleplerin karşılanması ya da bürokratik işlerde muhatap olunan merci burası. Bu durumu nasıl deneyimliyordunuz?)

- Of course, the administration was the object of your resistance because of its position in power relations. As can be seen in the memoirs, sometimes, prisoners use different methods to make the administration mind your problems. These methods can be invisible but problem-solving coping mechanisms. Do you have anything to say about this issue? Do you agree with this statement? (Elbette yönetim, iktidarın bir parçası olması dolayısıyla direnişinizden nasibini almıştır. Ancak anılardan da öğrendiğimiz kadarıyla bu konuda direnişin de çeşitli yolları var. Bazen iktidarın da farkına varamadığı ama sözünü dinletmenin olanaklı olduğu zamanlar olabiliyor. Böyle bir yargıya katılır mısınız?)

7) How was your relationship with the guards? (Gardiyanlarla aranız nasıldı?)

- For example, do you put them into a different position than the administration? (Yönetimden farklı olarak konumlandırır mısınız mesela?)

- For example, was there anyone who you developed good relations? What situations did you come across? (Yakın bulduğunuz ya da tam tersi anlaşamadığınız görevliler oldu mu? Nasıl durumlarla karşılaştınız?)

- Do you have any memoirs about them that make you smile and laugh? (Onlarla ilgili unutamadığınız ve sizi hala güldüren anılarınızdan bahsedebilir misiniz?)

164

8) What does the struggle mean for you? How must the struggle be according to you? (Sizin için mücadele ve direniş ne ifade ediyor? Size göre mücadele nasıl olmalı?)

- Are there any differences between the struggle inside and outside? “Dışarıda” verilen mücadele ile “içerideki” arasında bir fark var mı sizce?

- For example, in methodological sense? Because there are differences between what you have inside and outside as a tool for struggle. What do you think about that? (Yöntemsel açıdan mesela? Çünkü en başta, “dışarıda” ulaşabileceğimiz mücadele araçları ile “içeride” sahip olabileceklerimiz arasında çok fark var. Bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?)

# Third group questions on everyday life and tactical practices in F-type prisons:

9) How was your first day in F-type prison? What did you experience? (Hapishanedeki ilk gününüz nasıl geçti? Neler yaşadınız?)

- Generally, those memoirs are concentrated on two edges: either traumatic and difficult memoirs or interesting and cheerful things. What is the situation for you? Which category is appropriate for you? (Genelde bu anılar iki uçta toplanır: ya çok zorlayıcı ve travmatik anılardır ya da insanı tebessüm ettiren ve ilginç anılar anlatılır. Sizin için durum nasıl? Hangi kategoriye girersiniz?)

- There are many stories about the first day jokes in prisons. Do you have such memoirs (maybe you did or done to you)? (Hapishanelerle ilgili içerideki arkadaşların ilk gün şakalarından çokça bahsedilir. Böyle bir anınız (sizin yaptığınız bir şaka, ya da size yapılan bir şaka da olabilir) var mı?)

10) How would a day pass in F-types? (Hapishanede bir gününüz nasıl geçiyordu?)

- For example, what time were you used to wake up? (Mesela sabah kaçta kalkardınız?)

- You woke up. Then, what is the first thing that you were used to do? (Kalktınız. İlk işiniz ne olurdu?)

165

- What are the differences between the life ‘inside’ and the life ‘outside’? Are there any practices/behaviors that you took for granted outside but are very important inside? For example, having a shower, cooking? (“Dışarıdaki” gündelik hayatınız ile “içerideki” arasında nasıl bir fark vardı? “Dışarıda” çok farkında olmadığınız ama “içeride” hayati önem taşıyan alışkanlık ya da davranış/durumlar oldu mu? Mesela duş almak, yemek yapmak?)

- How were you used to divide your day? (Gününüzü nasıl bölerdiniz?)

- What are the ordinaries for a prison life? (Hapishane yaşamı için sıradan olan şeyler nelerdir mesela?)

- May I take more information about the leisure time activities like cleaning, cooking? For example, were you used to handle those responsibilities alone? How was the life with respect to those practices? (Temizlik, yemek, boş zaman aktiviteleriniz ile ilgili biraz daha detaylı bilgi alabilir miyiz? Mesela bu aktiviteleri tek başınıza mı hallederdiniz? Orada bu pratikler açısından nasıl bir yaşantı vardı?)

11) Could you talk about your adaptation period to F-type? How did you cope with? (Biraz da hapishaneye alışma sürecinizden bahsedebilir misiniz? Nasıl üstesinden geldiniz?)

- What are the differences between inside and outside? (Sizin için “içerisi” ve “dışarısı” arasında nasıl bir fark var?)

- Did you have times when you had troubles and difficulties? In those times, what did you do? How did you overcome those situations? (Zorlandığınız anlar oldu mu? Böyle durumlarda ne yaptınız? Nasıl üstesinden geldiniz?)

- Do you remember any memoir that you think it was a creative and smart act? (Yaratıcı ve zekâ dolu olarak tanımladığınız pratiklerden hatırladıklarınız var mı?)

- Do you have any memoir about the practices which make your work easier and which you hide from the administration? (Yönetimden gizlediğiniz, içeride işinizi kolaylaştıran pratikler var mıydı?) 166

12) Do you have some memoirs about F-types which you want to forget or create troubles for you? (Hala kafanızı kurcalayan ya da bizzat unutmak istemediğiniz anılarınız var mı F-tipleri ile ilgili?)

- What was your coping mechanism about these memoirs? (Bu anılarla ilgili baş etme mekanizmalarınız nelerdir?)

13) Do you have some memoirs about F-types that you still laugh when you remember? (Anlattığınızda hala çok güldüğünüz anılarınız var mı?)

14) Could you tell your visiting day memoirs? (Görüş günü anılarınızı anlatabilir misiniz?)

- We know that these visits take place in bad conditions which bears some human right violations. How do you interpret this? How did you overcome these problems? (Bu görüşlerin özellikle siyasi mahkûmlar için yeterince sağlanmadığını ve kötü koşul ve ortamlarda gerçekleştirildiğini biliyoruz. İnsan haklarına uymayan birçok davranışın yaşandığı mekânlar. Siz bu durumu nasıl deneyimlediniz? Nasıl üstesinden geldiniz bunun?)

15) Do you have any interesting or comic memoirs about your visiting days with your lawyers? (Avukatlarınızla olan görüşmelerle (hapishanede) ilgili ilginç ya da komik hatıralarınız var mı?)

- Generally, the visits take place in bad conditions and in the places where surveilled by the administration by camera and other things. How did you solve this problem? Or did you solve this problem? (Genelde baskı ortamında ve rahatça konuşulamayan mekânlarda görüşmeler gerçekleşir. Bu sorunu nasıl çözdünüz? Ya da çözebildiniz mi?)

16) Torture and ill-treatment are the common situations in those places. Even, some of them are famous with torture. Did you come across such a situation? (İşkence ve kötü muamele Türkiye hapishanelerinin çokça karşılaştığı durumlar. Hatta sadece onlarla anılan hapishaneler var. Siz böyle bir muameleye maruz kaldınız mı?)

167

- For the prisoners, pro-torture period is very traumatic and shocking. How did you overcome these periods? Did you have any overcoming method that you developed? (Mahpuslar için işkence dönemleri ve sonrası sarsıcı ve travmatik dönemler oluyor. Siz bu dönemleri nasıl atlattınız. Kendinizce uyguladığınız/bulduğunuz buna karşı koyma ya da ayakta kalma yöntemleri var mıydı?)

17) How was your adaptation process when you left the prison? (Dışarı çıktığınızda alışma süreci nasıl gerçekleşti?)

- Is there any situation that you could not get used to after you released from the prison? For example, putting the kettle on the (ocak). (Dışarıdaki gündelik hayatınızda çıkınca hemen alışamadığınız ya da içerideki bir alışkanlığınızı hala devam ettirdiğiniz durumlar oldu mu? Mesela anılardan bir örnek: kettle’ı ocağa koyup evi ateşe vermek vb.)

b) For lawyers:

#First group questions (on general information about F-type prisons and its architecture):

1) What is the first image that comes to your mind about prisons? What does it evoke to you? (Hapishane ile ilgili aklınıza gelen ilk imge nedir? Size neler çağrıştırıyor?)

- We know that in the prisons of Turkey being a prisoner is difficult. But these are the special places where important struggles are given. What would you like to say about this issue? (Türkiye hapishanelerinde mahpus olmak zordur. Ama bir taraftan da çok önemli mücadelelerin verildiği “özel” mekânlar. Bu konuda ne söylemek istersiniz?)

- We know that to speak for another is difficult. But when you look from a prisoner’s perspective what would you say about it? (Başkası adına konuşmak zordur ve yanıltıcı olabilir ama siz yine de bir mahpus gözünden baktığınızda hapishanelerle ilgili ne söyleyebilirsiniz?) 168

2) In Turkey, F-type prisons or high security prisons are new notions. Also the emergence of those institutions was very problematic (both for the power itself and for the political prisoners). There is not much information about the “inside” and about its architecture since it is a new type prison and the state does not provide information for the purpose of security. Could you give information about the inside and architecture as you can remember? (Türkiye’de F-Tipi ya da “yüksek güvenlikli hapishane” yeni bir kavram ve mekân. Ortaya çıkması da sorunlu olmuş yerler (hem iktidar hem de özellikle siyasi mahpuslar açısından). Mimarisi hakkında ve “içerisi” hakkında hem “güvenlik” gerekçesi ile hem de yeni olmasından kaynaklı çok fazla bilgi bulunmuyor. Aklınızda kalanlardan, mimarisi ve “içerisi” hakkında biraz bilgi verebilir misiniz?)

- Maybe you know that when a person enters to an F-type, in what place does he find himself? Till he reaches to his, from where does he pass; what kinds of places are they? (Mesela bir kişi F-tipine girdiğinde mimari olarak kendini nasıl bir yapının içinde bulur? Hücresine gidene kadar nasıl bir yerden, nerelerden geçer?)

- To what extent do the lawyers have right to get information about the inside? For example, how do you experience F-type prisons? To what extent a lawyer can experience an F-type prison? For example, could you experience a cell of your client? (Avukatların “ne kadarıyla” içerisi hakkında bilgi sahibi olma izni var? Örneğin F-tipi hapishane nereye kadar deneyimlediniz? Bir avukat F- tipinin ne kadarını deneyimleyebilir? Örneğin hücrelere kadar gitme durumları olabiliyor mu?)

- What are the differences between dormitory system and F-type prisons? Have your clients told about this issue to you? Could you share them with us? (Koğuş Tipi hapishaneler ile F-tipleri arasında nasıl farklar var. Bunu 169

deneyimlemiş müvekkilleriniz bu konuda sizinle bir şey paylaşmışlar mıydı? Bizimle paylaşır mısınız?)

- What do you think about the future of prisons (especially F-type prisons)? (Genel olarak Türkiye’de hapishanelerin, özelde de F-tiplerinin geleceği hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?)

# Second group questions on the definition the ‘political prisoner’ and on the meaning of struggle and resistance:

3) In Turkey, there is no political prisoner status which is recognized by the law. What do you think about that? (Türkiye’de yasalarla tanınmış bir “siyasi mahkûm” statüsü ya da ayrımı yok. Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?)

- Could you make a definition of political prisoner? (“‘Siyasi tutsak’ tanımı yapabilir misiniz?)

- What are the differences between the ordinary prisoner and political prisoner? (Siyasi tutsak ve adli tutuklu/hükümlü arasında nasıl farklılıklar var?)

- What are differences of political prisoners from the right wing prisoners? (Siyasi tutsağı sağ kanat tutuklu/hükümlülerden ayıran farklar nelerdir?)

- What is the difference between to advocate a political prisoner and to advocate an ordinary one? (Siyasi bir mahpus ile adli bir mahkûmu savunmak arasında fark olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?)

4) F-types are difficult places to live. How do your clients live those places? (Uzun süre kalınan kapalı mekânlar olarak hapishaneler yaşaması zor olan yerler. “Dışarıda” bile bir mekânı sorunsuz paylaşmak çok zor iken “içeride” bu durum nasıl yaşanıyor?)

- Sometimes there happen some problems between the political prisoners. Is there any client of you that told you about such an issue? (Bazen siyasi mahkûmların kendi aralarında da anlaşmazlıklar ortaya çıkabiliyor? Böyle

170

durumlarla karşılaşan (uygulayıcı ya da maruz kalan) müvekkilleriniz oldu mu?)

- Is there a possibility tol ive an ordinary prisoner with a political prisoner? If happens, how do they meet it? Does a problem arise? (I am asking for also the problems that occurs when an ordinary prisoner stay next to a political prisoner) (F-Tiplerinde siyasi ve adli mahkûmun aynı yerde kalma olasılığı var mı? Böyle bir durum olduğunda nasıl karşılanıyor? Sorunlar çıkıyor mu? Yakın hücrelerde kalmalarında olası problemler hakkında da soruyorum.)

- What is the possibility to accommodate in the same cell of the same organization? What is the procedure or rule of accommodation? If there becomes a differentiation on the procedure (like making ordinary and political prisoner stay in the same cell) what will be the results? Aynı örgüt mensuplarının aynı hücrelerde kalma olasılığı nedir? Ya da yönetim ya da yargı tarafından uygulanan bir prosedür ya da yazılı olmayan bir kural var mıdır? Eğer bu durumda bir değişiklik olursa bunun sonuçları ne olur?

- Is there any problem when political prisoners from different organizations stay together in the same cell? Do you hear any problem about this issue? (Farklı örgütlerden siyasi mahkûmlar birlikte kaldıklarında problem çıkıyor mu?)

# Third group questions on everyday life and tactical practices in F-type prisons:

5) How do your visits to clients in F-types pass? (Müvekkillerinizle görüşmeleriniz nasıl gerçekleşiyor?)

- Could you describe the atmosphere and the place? How does the regulation look like? Who are present in those places? (Ortamı biraz anlatabilir misiniz? Mesela nasıl bir mekân? Nasıl bir düzenleme? Mekânda kimler bulunuyor?)

- How are your relations with your clients in those places? (Müvekkillerinizle ilişkiniz nasıl?)

171

6) Could you tell an ordinary visit to your clients? (Müvekkilinizle sıradan bir görüşme gününü anlatabilir misiniz?)

- What do they tell to you? What are your subject matters except from the trial? (Size neler anlatıyorlar? Konuşmalarınız genelde ne üzerine oluyor, dava dışında?)

- Do you clients give information about their everyday life in prisons? (Müvekkilleriniz size içerisi ve gündelik yaşayışları ile ilgili bilgi veriyorlar mı?)

- How do their ordinary days pass? (Hapishanede bir gün nasıl geçiyor?)

7) Do your clients tell about their troubles they come across in prisons? How do they overcome them? (Müvekkilleriniz karşılaştıkları zor durumlarla nasıl mücadele ettiklerini size anlatırlar mı?)

- For example, how they solve their problems about the administration? (Örneğin yönetimle ilgili ya da taleplerinin gerçekleştirilmesi ile ilgili sorunlarını nasıl çözerler?)

- Do they tell you the problems between themselves? (Kendi aralarındaki problemleri size anlatırlar mı?)

8) Do you remember any interesting or comic memoir that is told by your clients? (Müvekkillerinizle anlattığı onların eğlenceli/mizahi (yaratıcı) anılarından aklınızda varsa bizimle paylaşabilir misiniz?)

9) Could you share with us the cheerful and humorous memoirs that you heard from your clients? (Müvekkillerinizle olan hapishane görüşmelerinden aklınıza gelen onların eğlenceli bulduğu mizah içeren, yaratıcı ve ilginç anıları bizimle paylaşır mısınız?)

10) How could you define your client’s understanding of struggle and resistance? (Müvekkillerinizin mücadele ve direniş anlayışlarını nasıl tanımlarsınız?)

- Do they exceed it? (Bunun dışına çıktıkları olur mu?)

172

- Do they develop a new or different form of resistance? (Ya da farklı bir mücadele biçimi geliştirdikleri?)

c) For the families:

# First group questions (on general information about F-type prisons and its architecture):

1) What is the first image that comes to your mind about prisons? What does it evoke to you? (Hapishane ile ilgili aklınıza gelen ilk imge nedir? Size neler çağrıştırıyor?)

- We know that in the prisons of Turkey being a prisoner is difficult. But these are the special places where important struggles are given. What would you like to say about this issue? (Türkiye hapishanelerinde mahpus olmak zordur. Ama bir taraftan da çok önemli mücadelelerin verildiği “özel” mekânlar. Bu konuda ne söylemek istersiniz?)

2) As a relative of a prisoner, what are your F-type prison experiences? How do you experience those places? (Mahpus yakını olarak sizin hapishane deneyiminiz nasıl oluyor? O mekânları nasıl deneyimliyorsunuz?)

- Especially about F-type prisons, what would you like to say? What are the differentiating points of F-types from other prisons?

173

# Second group questions on the definition the ‘political prisoner’ and on the meaning of struggle and resistance:

- Could you make a definition of political prisoner? (“‘Siyasi tutsak’ tanımı yapabilir misiniz?)

- What are the differences between the ordinary prisoner and political prisoner? (Siyasi tutsak ve adli tutuklu/hükümlü arasında nasıl farklılıklar var?)

- What are differences of political prisoners from the right wing prisoners? (Siyasi tutsağı sağ kanat tutuklu/hükümlülerden ayıran farklar nelerdir?)

- How does your relative define himself? What does he think about being a political prisoner? (Yakınınız bu konuda ne düşünüyor? Kendini nasıl tanımlıyor?)

4) Could you talk about your relative’s understanding of struggle and resistance? How does he describe his situation? Does he share anything with you about this issue? (Yakınınızın mücadele anlayışından bahsedebilir misiniz? Kendisini ve içinde bulunduğu mücadeleyi nasıl tanımlar? Sizinle bu konuda bir şey paylaştı mı?)

- Is there any period that they develop different resistance practices? What are they? (Farklı bir mücadele biçimi geliştirdikleri zamanlar olur mu? Nedir onlar?)

- Are there any differences between the struggle inside and outside? “Dışarıda” verilen mücadele ile “içerideki” arasında bir fark var mı sizce?

174

ulaşabileceğimiz mücadele araçları ile “içeride” sahip olabileceklerimiz arasında çok fark var. Bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?)

11) F-types are difficult places to live. How do your relatives live those places? (Hapishaneler bazen uzun süre kalınan kapalı mekânlar olarak yaşaması çok zor olan yerler. “Dışarıda” bile bir mekânı sorunsuz paylaşmak çok zor iken “içeride” bu durum nasıl yaşanıyor?)

- Sometimes there happen some problems between the political prisoners. Is your relative told you about such an issue? (Bazen siyasi mahkûmların kendi aralarında da anlaşmazlıklar ortaya çıkabiliyor? Akrabanız böyle bir şeyle karşılaştı mı?)

- Is there a possibility to live an ordinary prisoner with a political prisoner? If happens, how do they meet it? Does a problem arise? (I am asking for also the problems that occurs when an ordinary prisoner stay next to a political prisoner) (F-Tiplerinde siyasi ve adli mahkûmun aynı yerde kalma olasılığı var mı? Böyle bir durum olduğunda nasıl karşılanıyor? Sorunlar çıkıyor mu? Yakın hücrelerde kalmalarında olası problemler hakkında da soruyorum.)

# Third group questions on everyday life and tactical practices in F-type prisons:

175

5) How do you communicate with your relative? How frequent do you communicate? (Yakınınızla nasıl haberleşiyorsunuz? Ne kadar sıklıkla?)

6) Let’s talk about these ways of communication one by one. Firstly, corresponding. (Bu iletişim biçimlerini tek tek konuşalım. Öncelikle mektuplaşma.)

- How frequent do you correspond? (Ne kadar sıklıkla mektuplaşırsınız?)

- About which subjects do you correspond? (Genelde hangi konular hakkında yazışırsınız?)

- Especially in F-types, there is a strict policy on corresponding. Each letter is read by a committee and they have the authority on this issue. What do you think about this issue? Do you experience any problem? How do you overcome them? (Hapishaneler özellikle mektuplaşma konusunda sıkı bir politika uyguluyor. Her mektup ve yazışmanın okunması, “sakıncalı” gördüklerini mahkûmlara vermeme ya da yakınlarına ulaştırmama. Bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz? Nasıl karşılıyorsunuz? Problem yaşadığınız oluyor mu? Nasıl üstesinden geliyorsunuz?)

7) When we come to the memoirs on visiting days. (Görüş günleriyle ilgili anılarınıza gelecek olursak)

- How frequent do you visit your relative? (Ne kadar sıklıkla görüşüyorsunuz?)

- How does a classical visiting day pass for you? How does the process follow? I guess you have to give your name to the administration for visiting? Then? (Sıradan bir görüş günü sizin için nasıl geçiyor? Bununla ilgili süreç nasıl işliyor? Sanırım önce yakınınızın görüş için sizin isminizi vermesi gerekiyor. Sonra?)

- Could you describe the place and the atmosphere of these places? Is there anyone except from you? (Görüştüğünüzde bulunduğunuz ortamı biraz anlatabilir misiniz? Nasıl bir yer? Sadece siz mi oluyorsunuz?)

- Do you have any interesting memoirs that you have not forgotten? (Görüş günlerinizle ilgili unutamadığınız ilginç anılarınız var mı?)

176

- Could you speak on cheerful and creative memoirs or situations that you have not forgotten? (Bu günlerle ilgili eğlenceli ve yaratıcı bulduğunuz anılar ve durumlardan konuşabilir miyiz?)

8) How do your telephone speeches pass? (Telefon görüşmeleriniz nasıl geçiyor?)

- Do you remember any interesting situation? (İlginç bir durum hatırlıyor musunuz?)

- How frequent do you speak on phone? (Ne sıklıkla telefon görüşmesi yaparsınız?)

9) How does your relative talk about an ordinary of himself in F-type? Do you have any document on this issue (like photograph, etc.)? (Yakınınız size hapishanede yaşadığı bir günü nasıl anlattı? Bununla ilgili mektup ya da başka bir doküman (fotoğraf vb.) varsa paylaşabilir misiniz?)

10) Have your relative told about any cheerful, creative and interesting memoir that he lived in F-type prison? Could you share it with us? (Yakınınız hapishanede yaşadığı eğlenceli ya da yaratıcı ve ilginç olaylardan hiç bahsetti mi? Bunları bizimle paylaşır mısınız?)

d) For Prisoners (Corresponding):

# First group questions (on general information about F-type-prisons and its architecture):

1) Could you describe F-type prisons for the one who does not know anything about it? (F-tipi hapishaneler hakkında hiçbir şey bilmeyen biri için F-tipini anlatabilir misiniz?) - In an architectural manner? (Mimari açıdan?) - As a living place? (Yaşam alanı olarak?)

2) Have you experienced dormitory system? If yes, what are the differences/similarities between dormitory system and F-types? (Koğuş Tipi

177

hapishaneleri de deneyimlediniz mi? Deneyimlediyseniz, F-tipleri ile aralarında nasıl bir fark var?)

- I ask both for everyday life practices and struggle itself? (Hem gündelik hayat pratikleri açısından hem de mücadele açısından soruyorum.)

- For example, practice of communication, cooking, painting, etc. (Örneğin, iletişim, yemek, resim pratikleri açısından)

- What do you think about the future of prisons (especially F-type prisons)? (Genel olarak Türkiye’de hapishanelerin, özelde de F-tiplerinin geleceği hakkında ne düşünüyorsunuz?)

# Second group questions on the definition the ‘political prisoner’ and on the meaning of struggle and resistance:

3) What is your definition of “political prisoner”? (Sizin “siyasi tutsak” tanımınız nedir? - How do you differentiate yourself from the other prisoners (from ordinary ones and from the prisoners of right wing movements)? (Kendinizi diğer mahkûmlardan nasıl ayırırsınız (adli ve sağ hareketlere üye olan mahkûmlardan)? 4) How is your relationship with the other prisoners? (Diğer mahkûmlarla ilişkileriniz nasıl?) - When a problem occurs, how do you solve it? (Problem ortaya çıktığında nasıl çözüyorsunuz?) 5) How is your relationship with the guards? (Gardiyanlarla ilişkileriniz nasıl?) - When a problem occurs, how do you solve it? (Problem ortaya çıktığında nasıl çözüyorsunuz?)

178

6) How is your relationship with the administration? (Yönetimle ilişkileriniz nasıl?) - When a problem occurs, how do you solve it? (Problem ortaya çıktığında nasıl çözüyorsunuz?)

# Third group questions on everyday life and tactical practices in F-type prisons:

7) Could you tell us a (ordinary) day in prisons? (Hapishanedeki (sıradan) bir gününüzü anlatabilir misiniz?)

8) How would a day pass in F-types? (Hapishanede bir gününüz nasıl geçiyordu?)

- For example, what time do you wake up? (Mesela sabah kaçta kalkarsınız?)

- You woke up. Then, what is the first thing that you were used to do? (Kalktınız. İlk işiniz ne olur?)

- How were you used to divide your day? (Gününüzü nasıl bölerdiniz?)

- What are the ordinaries for a prison life? (Hapishane yaşamı için sıradan olan şeyler nelerdir mesela?)

- Could you share with us more information about the leisure time activities like cleaning, cooking? For example, how do you do these activities? How is the life with respect to those practices? (Temizlik, yemek, boş zaman aktiviteleriniz ile ilgili biraz daha detaylı bilgi alabilir miyiz? Mesela bu aktiviteleri tek başınıza mı halledersiniz? Orada bu pratikler açısından nasıl bir yaşantı var?)

9) What are your problems in F-types? (F-tiplerindeki problemleriniz neler? - What are your coping mechanisms? (Bunlarla baş etme yöntemleriniz neler?) - What are your creative coping techniques? (Yaratıcı baş etme teknikleriniz neler?) - Could you share with us an interesting and creative memory about the issue? (Başınızdan geçen ilginç ve yaratıcı örnekleri bizimle paylaşır mısınız?) 10) Could you share with us your interesting memoirs in F-type prisons? (F-tipindeki ilginç anılarınızı bizimle paylaşabilir misiniz?)

179

11) Could you describe your visiting days? (Görüş günlerinizden bahsedebilir misiniz?) 12) Could you describe your visiting days with your lawyers? (Avukatlarınızla olan görüş günlerinden bahsedebilir misiniz?

180

APPENDIX-2 Prison Systems

Figure-1: Auburn State Prison Figure-2 (Right): Prisoners at the States Prison at Auburn (New York; c. 1840) Eng. In John W. Barber, Historical Collections of the State of New York, p. 67. (F119.B24)

Figure-3: Eastern Penitentiary Figure-4 (Right): This print is a bird's eye view of the prison built in 1823–36 at 2101–99 Fairmount Avenue, Philadelphia, after the designs of John Haviland. From the web site: http://www.wdl.org/en/item/9451/

181

Figure-5 (Left): Plan of Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon penitentiary by Willey Reveley in 1791 Figure: Presidio Modelo prison in Cuba.

Figure-6 (Right): Inside one of the prison buildings at Presidio Modelo, Isla de la Juventud, Cuba (2005).

Figure-7: Pentonville An isometric drawing of Pentonville prison, from an 1844 report by Joshua Jebb, Royal Engineers.

182

Figure-8: Ulucanlar Prison before the restoration

183

APPENDIX-3 Prison Statistics of European Countries

)

(%) (%) (%)

System

Country

Juveniles Juveniles

trial Detainees Detainees trial

population

Occupancy Level Occupancy

Female Prisoners Prisoners Female

Pre

National Population National

Foreign Prisoners (%) Prisoners Foreign

(per 100.000 of national national of 100.000 (per

Number of Institutions Number

Prison Population Rate Rate Population Prison

Prison Population Total Population Prison

Prison Population Trend* Population Prison Official Capacity of Prison of Prison Capacity Official 125, Albania 192 2.89 mil. 5547 51,9 1,7 1,4 1,7 22 4537 I 6 18, Andorra 53 78.000 41 79,2 0,0 77,4 1 145 28,3 D 9 Armenia 130 2.99 mil. 3880 26,4 5,1 0,5 3,2 11 4395 89,3 D

Austria 97 8.66 mil. 8381 21,8 6,0 1,2 50,9 27 8814 95,1 I

Azerbaijan 236 9.54 mil. 22526 16,9 2,8 0,3 2,5 53 25.400 81,4 D

Belarus 306 9.47 mil. 29000 19,0 6,8 0,5 3,1 34 42894 96,8 D 11.31 111, Belgium 98 11071 31,2 4,2 0,6 44,7 35 9962 I mil. 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 102, 73 2.35 mil. 1722 12,5 2,9 0,2 2,6 8.0 1844 I Federation 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina: 67 1.3 mil. 877 9,9 1,6 1,3 2,7 6 1459 60,1 D Republika Srpska Bulgaria 125 7.21 mil. 9028 21,1 3,2 0,8 2,0 55 10550 85,6 I

Croatia 81 4.21 mil. 3424 22,1 5,4 1,1 5,2 23 4022 93,6 D 112, Cyprus (Republic of) 80 850.700 681 35,7 7,8 0,6 47,7 1 480 D 3 10.57 104, Czech Republic 205 21667 9,1 7,1 0,4 8,0 35 20760 I mil. 4 Denmark 61 5.67 mil. 3481 35,5 4,0 0,4 27,9 50 3763 92,5 S

Estonia 221 1.31 mil. 2898 24,6 5,2 0,9 37,4 4 3034 96,3 D Faeroe Islands 23 48480 11 27,3 1,6 0 0 1 14 78,6 S (Denmark) Finland 55 5.49 mil. 3002 19,9 7,5 0,3 15,3 30 3156 98,4 D 18 113, France 99 67,2 mil. 66678 27,2 3,2 1,1 21,7 58561 I 8 9 Georgia 262 3.72 mil. 9734 13,4 2,9 0,4 3,4 15 21398 45,5 D 81,35 18 Germany 76 61737 19,8 5,7 2,8 27,1 73916 83,5 D mil. 4 Gibraltar (United 158 32900 52 25,0 5,8 3,8 29,4 1 98 53,1 I Kingdom) 10,69 Greece 91 9698 26,7 5,0 2,5 54,7 35 9886 98,1 D mil. Guernsey (United 127 65.450 83 10,8 7,2 0,0 7,2 1 130 63,8 I Kingdom) 130, Hungary 183 9.82 mil. 17976 22,1 7,2 1,9 5,5 33 13771 I 5

184

(Continued) Iceland 45 325700 147 8,4 3,3 1,3 15,8 6 165 89,1 S

Ireland, Republic of 81 4.65 mil. 3786 13,5 3,9 1,3 13,5 14 4202 90,1 D

Isle of Man (United 92 87000 80 13,8 6,3 0,0 3,8 1 138 58,0 D Kingdom) 60.81 21 108, Italy 88 53725 34,4 4,1 0,8 33,6 49579 D mil. 0 4 Jersey (United Kingdom) 152 101500 154 24 4,5 0,6 26,6 1 200 77,0 I

Kosovo/Kosova 100 1.81 mil. 1816 32,8 2,7 2,5 7,3 12 2447 74,2 I

Latvia 224 1.97 mil. 4409 31 7,2 0,8 1,8 12 7970 59,5 D

Liechtenstein 27 37600 10 37,5 0,0 0,0 50 1 20 40 D

Lithuania 254 2.9 mil. 7355 8,6 3,7 1,2 1,6 11 9299 79,1 D

Luxembourg 120 576300 691 45,2 5 0,3 72,3 2 711 92,3 D Macedonia (former 136, 166 2.07 mil. 3427 10 2,9 0,3 3,2 13 2519 I Yugoslav Republic of) 0 Malta 131 433300 569 22,7 6,3 1,7 40,2 1 675 91,1 S

Moldova (Republic of) 222 3.55 mil. 7881 19,3 6,2 0,4 1,3 17 8654 91,1 I 17, Monaco 74 37800 28 82,8 8,7 89,7 2 87 26,4 I 4 Montenegro 182 622700 1131 26,3 3,1 0,4 15,1 3 1350 83,8 D 16.88 Netherlands 69 11603 39,9 5,4 1,5 23,2 77 16412 77,0 D mil. Norway 70 5.22 mil. 3679 26,3 5,8 0,1 35,2 42 4097 89,8 I 37.99 21 Poland 189 71786 6,1 3,5 0,4 0,8 83114 86,2 D mil. 5 10.31 112, Portugal 139 14281 15,4 5,9 0,4 17,2 49 12600 I mil. 1 19.75 103, Romania 144 28393 8,1 5,0 1,2 1,0 45 27496 D mil. 3 144.3 97 Russian Federation 453 653218 18,6 8,1 0,2 3,9 81613 82,2 D mil. 7 San Marino 6 33700 2 0,0 0,0 0,0 50,0 1 13 15,4 S 106, Serbia 142 7,07 mil. 10067 18,9 4,1 1 3,5 28 9459 D 4 Slovakia 186 5.43 mil. 10116 14,5 6,5 0,6 1,8 18 11188 90,4 D 114, Slovenia 73 2,06 mil. 1511 14,0 5,6 0,4 10,9 7 1322 I 3 46,35 Spain 133 61541 12,6 7,6 0,0 28,7 82 77209 84,2 D mil. Sweden 53 9.85 mil. 5245 25,3 5,6 0,2 30,7 79 6228 84,2 D 11 Switzerland 84 8.2 mil. 6923 39,4 4,7 0,4 73 7235 95,7 I 4 78.98 35 102, Turkey 238 187609 14,1 3,7 1,3 1,8 179883 I mil. 5 6 14 120, Ukraine 173 36.3 mil. 62749 26,2 4,7 0,7 1,7 122184 D 8 4 United Kingdom: 58.25 12 111, 147 85540 13,3 4,5 0,8 12,7 77223 I England & Wales mil. 3 3 United Kingdom: 78 1.86 mil. 1460 24,9 3,5 0,0 8,4 3 1841 82,2 I Northern Ireland United Kingdom: 143 5.38 mil. 7672 18,5 4,7 1,1 3,7 15 8152 94,1 I Scotland

185

APPENDIX-4 Prison Chronology of Turkey*

• 3 November1839 - The Rescript Of Gülhane (Tanzimat Fermanı) • 3 May1840 - Criminal Code (Kanun-i Ceza) • 1851 - New Law (Kanun- i Cedit) • 18 February 1856 - Royal Edict of Reform (Islahat Fermanı) • 1858 - Imperial on Crime (Ceza Kanunname-i Hümayun) • 1865 - Regulation on Criminal Execution (Ceza İnfaz Talimatnamesi) • 1870 - Establishment of Sultanahmet Prison • 13 January 1875 - Regulation on workshops in prisons (Emirname) • 21 May 1880 - Prison and Detention Camp Regulation-The first fundamental document related with Chaotic the prisons of Ottoman Empire) (Memalik-i Mahrusayı Şahane'de Bulunan Tevkifhane ve Period Hapishanelerin İdare-i Dahiliyelerine Dair Nizamname Layihası) • 1916 - Regulation (categorization of prisoners) (Nizamname) (1839 - • 1 July 1926 - Turkish Penal Code no 765 1950) • 1 June 1929 - Ministry of Justice took over the responsibility of management of the Penal Institutions and Detention Houses from the Ministry of Interior • 14 June 1930 - Law on the Management of Prisons and Detention Houses • 24 December 1931 - Report of Fuat andFerit Bey on the bad conditions of the prisons • 25 June1932 - Supplementary article on working for public interest • 6 June 1938 - Foundation of the General Direntorate of Prisons and Detention Houses • 01 October 1936 - Opening of prison in İmralı Iseland based on work • 31 July 1941 - Regulation on Penal Institutions and Detention Houses • 12 January 1943 - Law no 4358 (related with the identification of the assigments of the Penal Institutions and Detention Houses

• After 1950s - Establishment of"Type" Prisons (A, A1, A2, A3, B, C) • 13 July1965 - Law of Execution no 647 • 1 August1967 - Regulation of the Management of Penal Institutions and Detention Houses and Execution of Punishment no 6/8517 • End of the 1960s - Rising of the Left • After 1970s - Establishment of E, H, K1, K2 type prisons • 12 March 1971 - Memorandum (Askeri hapishanelerde kalan bütün mahpusların asker olarak kabul edileceği kararı) • 12 September 1980 - Coup d'etat • After 1980s - Establishment of M type prisons • 25 March 1981 - Enforcement of Prensip Emri by the Military (Prison uniform and Mix-Reconcile Period principle) of • 4 March1981 - Start of death fast in Diyarbakır Prison Order • 17 April 1981 - Opening of Metris Prison (The first E-type prison) • 6 July1983 - Opening of H-type Sağmalcılar Prison (1950 - • 2 August 1983 - Change in 13/1 Regulation and in the Regulation of Management of Penal 2000) Institutions and Detention Houses and Execution of Punishment (Mix/Reconcile prison uniform, giving political prisoners status of enlisted man, regulations on daily life) • 11 April 1984 - Start of the Death Fast in İstanbul Prisons • March 1987 - Establishment of first cell-type prison in Eskişehir • March 1991 - Anti-terror Law no 3701 (Idea of isolation model appears) • 21 September 1995 - Massacre in Buca Prison • 4 January 1996 - Massacre in Ümraniye Prison • 24 September 1996 - Massacre in Diyarbakır Prison • 26 September 1999 - Massacre in Ulucanlar Prison • 7 January 2000 - Massacre in Bandırma Prison • 25 January 2000 - Massacre in Metris Prison

• In 1999- Establishment of D, F, L, T type prisons • 20 October 2000 - Start of the hunger strikes in prisons by the political prisoners • 19 December 2000 - Return to Life Operation Period • 16 May 2001 - The Law of Execution no 4681 of • 14 June 2001 - Law on Penal Institution and Detention Houses Monitoring Board no 4681 Isolation • 29 July 2002 - The Law on Education of the Personnel of the Penal Institutions and Detention Houses no 4769 (2000 - • 26 September 2004 - Turkish Penal Code no 5237 ...) • 13 December 2004 - The Law of the Execution of Punishment and Security Precautions no 5275 • 22 January 2007 - Regulation which allows prisoners (up to 10 prisoner) to come together ten hour a week in a common area (This date is also the last day of the death fast which started with the Operation and resulted in the death of 122 political prisoner) *This chronology is mainly derived from the work of Mustafa Eren (2014). 186

APPENDIX-5 F-type Prison Plan*

*From my own archive.

187

APPENDIX-6 Single Cell

188

APPENDIX-7 Pysical Condititons of the Single Cells

There is a special part which is separated by a door and composed of 1x1 length: A toilet which is composed of a toilet block, shower and a washbasin.

There is a 2 meters long bed which is wall mounted. At the end of the bed there is a cabinet which has only one drawer. Neighbor to cabinet there is a two-compartment window (only one compartment can be opened). Next to the window there is a door which opens to the exercise yard.

(The position of the windows was at first inside our demand list. In Block C, the window which can be opened is built at the place of cabinet. The other one was fixed. The one which can be opened can only be opened one span and then reach to the cabinet. We live in 5 years in those conditions. In 2010 when the walls of the cells were being painted (in the last days) those position of the windows were changed. The hinged one no longer reaches to the cabinet. But, seeing that alterations are being done, the bed and the cabinet can be moved more to the wall, and thus, there can be more places in front of the window. Our demand was not accepted because of the pretext of “this is the architecture, we cannot change it”. Whereas our demand was just to move the beds ten centimeters forward!)

Near the bed, there is 75x75 plastic table and chair. Since this table occupies a space and curtails to pace between two doors, we demanded smaller tables in size. But this demand still has not been accepted.

If you come for solitary confinement; i.e. you are a passenger, you can put the table and the chair on the bed and so you can pace. In other words, with this way you can obtain a pace field for 4-5 foots. You can handle it. After all, as we will deal with later, these cells were built for this purpose. That is, for solitary confinement. The life in those places is limited for 20 days (at most).

But if you are permanent, i.e. you will live here till death; there will be minimal necessities for survival. Television, refrigerator, vegetable bowl, kitchen sink, 189 laundry basket, musical instrument (baglama, guitar), bird cage and etc. Even without these object you cannot pace, with those things to pace will develop your magic skills.

For TV, 2,5-3 meters long cable is given. (More convenient or longer cables have not been accepted for years) The length of the table for TV which is sold in canteen is 40 centimeters. Thus, for this reason, TV must be on the table [not on the new table for TV]. Various methods have been experienced; you have to watch furthest 1-2 meters. Is there anyone who does not know that the scientists talk about the damages of watching TV from this distance?

Tek Kişilik Hücrelerin Fiziki Koşulları

Koridordan giriş kapısının hemen solunda ayrı bir kapı ile ayrılmış 1x1 metre kadar özel bir bölüm: Tuvalet taşı, duş ve lavabodan oluşan tuvalet.

Tuvaletin duvar hizasına konmuş, 2 metre boyunda bir ranza. Ranza bitiminde tek gözlü bir dolap ve hemen bitişiğinde parmaklıklı, biri açılır kapanır iki bölmeli pencere. Pencere kenarında – bitişik- havalandırmaya açılan kapı.

(Buradaki pencerenin konumu, başta taleplerimiz içindeydi. C blok hücrelerinin pencerelerinden açılır kapanır olan dolap tarafına yapılmıştı. Diğeri sabitti. Açılır kapanır olan ancak bir karış kadar açılıyor ve dolaba dayanıyordu. 5 yıl aynı koşullarda yaşadık. 2010 yılında hücreler boyanırken (son aylarında) bu pencerelerin yeri değiştirildi. Yeni açılır kapanır pencere artık dolaba değmiyor. Ancak, mademki tadilat-tamirat yapılıyor, ranza ve dolabın da biraz daha duvar dibine çekilmesi, pencere önünde biraz daha geniş yer kalması talebimiz, “mimari yapı böyle, değiştiremeyiz” gerekçesiyle kabul görmedi. Oysa istemimiz 10 cm daha geri çekilmesiydi!)

Ranza kenarında 75x75 cmlik plastik bir masa ve sandalye. Plastik masa yer kapladığı ve iki kapı arası volta atma zorluğu nedeniyle, bu masaların daha ufak masalarla değiştirilmesi talebimiz de yıllardır kabul edilmiyor. 190

Eğer 5-10 günlük hücre cezası için gelmişseniz, yani geçiciyseniz, eşyanız yok ise, masa sandalyeyi ranza üzerine atıp volta atabilirsiniz. Yani iki kapı arası 4-5 adımlık volta alanınız olur. İdare edebilirsiniz. Ki ileride inceleyeceğimiz gibi, bu hücreler zaten bunun için yapılmıştır. Yani hücre cezası için. Ve burada yaşam yasal olarak 20 günle (en fazla) sınırlıdır.

Ancak kalıcıysanız, yani ölünceye kadar burada yaşayacaksanız, asgari zorunlu gereksinimler olacaktır. Televizyon, buzdolabı, sebzelik rafları, bulaşık sepeti, çamaşır sepeti, müzik aleti (bağlama, gitar vb.), kuş kafesi vb. gibi. O eşyanız hücrede volta atılamazken, bu eşyalarla hücrede kendinize yer açmak sihirbazlığınız gelişecektir.

TV için, 2,5-3 metrelik anten kablosu verilir. (Daha uygun kablo ya da uzatma kablosu talebi yıllardır kabul edilmemiştir). Kantinde satılan TV sehpası 40 cm civarındadır yüksekliği. Bu nedenle mecburen masa üzerinde olacaktır TV. Türlü yöntemler denenmiş; en fazla 1-2 metreden TV seyretmek zorundasınız. Bilim adamlarının bu mesafeden TV seyretmenin zararlarını söylemelerini bilmeyenimiz var mı?

191

APPENDIX-8 Triple Cell*

The

floor top

The

groundfloor

*From my own archive 192

APPENDIX-9 An Ordinary Day of Political Prisoners

Time Activity

6 a.m. – 7 a.m. Waking up and breakfast

8 a.m. Morning roll call

8 a.m. – 9 a.m. Morning Sports or pacing

9 a.m. – 12 a.m. Silence time (individual works)

12 a.m. – 14 p.m. Lunch and pacing

14 p.m. – 17 p.m. Silence time (individual works)

18 p.m. Dinner

18 p.m. – 20 p.m. Silence time (individual works)

20 p.m. – 21 p.m. News and TV

21 p.m. – 24 p.m. Silence time (individual works)

24 p.m. Going to bed

193

APPENDIX-10 Interviewee Profiles

Date of the Experience Via Duration No Name Status interview/ of F type Interview of the corresponding (year) or Mail interview 1 Arin Family 10.03.2015 21 years interview 1:22:32 2 Roza Family 10.03.2015 21 years interview 1:25:57 3 Toprak Ex-prisoner 10.03.2015 2 years interview 1:42:00 4 Azad Lawyer 11.03.2015 - interview 1:54:47 Lawyer and 5 Ali 11.03.2015 1 year interview 0:24:18 Ex-prisoner Lawyer and 6 Dengtav 11.03.2015 - interview 2:04:33 Family 7 Rüzgâr Lawyer 12.03.2015 - interview 0:40:54 Lawyer and 8 Viyan 12.03.2015 - interview 1:25:59 Ex-prisoner 9 Barış Lawyer 13.03.2015 - interview 1:25:41 10 Taylan Lawyer 14.03.2015 - interview 0:46:24 11 Özgür Ex-prisoner 15.03.2015 5 years interview 1:13:35 12 Mazlum Family 16.03.2015 - interview 0:47:44 13 Kemal Family 16.03.2015 - interview 0:47:44 14 Haki Family 16.03.2015 - interview 0:47:44 15 Delâl Family 16.03.2015 - interview 0:31:34 16 Rumed Ex-prisoner 13.05.2015 7 years interview 1:42:04 17 Güneş Ex-prisoner 02.06.2015 15 years interview 1:48:01 18 Deniz Ex-prisoner 03.06.2015 1 year interview 1:35:42 19 Günay Ex-prisoner 05.07.2015 10 years interview 0:48:03 20 Gökçe Family 24.10.2015 - interview 1:46:37 21 Umut Ex-prisoner 27.12.2015 2,5 years interview 1:45:39 Suphi 22 Ex-prisoner 21.12.2015 11 years interview 1:42:04 Nejat 23 Şafak Prisoner 11.2015- 10 years Mail - 24 Ethem Prisoner 12.2015- 10 years Mail - 25 Berkin Prisoner 12.2015- 22 years Mail - 26 Nazım Prisoner 06.2015- 22 years Mail - 27 Can Prisoner 10.2015- 20 years Mail -

194

APPENDIX-11 Prison Ball

195

196

APPENDIX-12 A Possible Route of Prison Ball

197

APPENDIX-13 Wallet

198

APPENDIX-14 Handmade Knife

199

APPENDIX-15 Turkish Summary

Bu çalışmada siyasi mahpusların F-tipi yüksek güvenlikli hapishanelerde gündelik yaşamı nasıl ördüğü ve gündelik yaşamlarındaki yaratıcı direniş pratikleri doğrultusunda nasıl bir alternatif direniş tarihi oluşturduğu ele alınmıştır. Bu sorunsal çerçevesinde Michel de Certeau’nun taktik (tactic) kavramı ile gündelik hayatta direnme ve iktidar ilişkileri incelenmiştir.

Hapishaneler ve zindanlar tarih boyunca karamsarlığın ve vahşetin sembollerinden biri olmuş ve üzerine yüklendiği bu anlamla da edebiyattan siyaset bilimi ve sosyolojiye kadar birçok alanda kendini göstermiştir. Fakat bir taraftan hapishaneler içeriden doğru yükselen umudun ve direnişin sembolü olma vasfını da hak edecek kadar çok fazla direniş ve mücadeleye de sahne olmuş mekânlardır. Bu özellikle akademide göz ardı edilen ve bu anlamıyla politik bir tercihin de sonucudur. Elbette içinde yaşanılan sistemin ve hayatın her yerine sirayet etmiş iktidar mekanizmasının nasıl işlediğini analiz etmek hayati önem taşımaktadır. Fakat de Certeau’nun da belirttiği gibi meselenin karşı koyuş ve direniş boyutu da aynı derece önem taşımakta ve analiz edilmesi gerekmektedir.

Hapishaneler sistemin “artıkları”nın kapatıldığı mekânlardır. Diğer bir deyişle, hapishane mantığı “arzulanan”ın “istenmeyen” üzerinden inşasıdır. Arzu edilen insan profili doğrudan onu yaratarak değil, “olmamış”, “defolu” ve “istenmeyen” üzerinden yaratılmaktadır. Bu açıdan bakıldığında hapishaneler tam da iktidar ilişkilerinin göbeğine düşmektedir. Fakat meselenin direniş boyutu, hapishane kurumunu salt bu istenmeyen üzerinden istenenin yaratımı bağlamında tartışılamayacağı durumunu ortaya koyar. Çünkü istenmeyen -özellikle siyasi tutsaklar düşünüldüğünde-, istenmeyen olmada ısrarlı ve hatta bu konuda gayretli davranmaktadır. Bu anlamda hapishane iki tarafın da yani istenmeyen ile istemeyenin kozlarını paylaştığı bir mekân haline gelir. Her ne kadar diğer tüm sosyal mekânlar için geçerli bir özellik olsa da hapishane mekânı, toplumdan izole olması ve kendine has mekanizmasıyla (sistemden bağımsız değildir) kendini bu anlamda ayrıştırır. Bu konumlanış, hapishane kurumunun

200 az önce altını çizdiğimiz direniş mekânları haline gelmesini daha net bir şekilde ortaya koyar. Fakat bu klasik anlamda bir direnişin görünürlüğüdür. Yani de Certeau’nun terimleriyle stratejik bir karşı koyuştur. İktidarı karşına alıp kendi mekânının sınırlarını –dolayısıyla ötekinin de- çizdiğin bir eylemlilik taşır. Siyasi tutsaklar için hapishanedeki gündelik hayatları yönetimin saldırılarıyla doğru orantıda stratejik anlamda bir konumlanış gösterir. Ancak bunu bütün bir gündelik hayat için iddia etmek zordur. Özellikle hapishanelerde uzun yıllar kalan siyasi tutsaklar mekânla ilgili farklı, yaratıcı ve bu anlamda strateji kavramına denk düşmeyen gündelik hayat pratikleri oluştururlar. Gündelik hayat pratiklerinde bunun yansıması de Certeaucu anlamda iktidarın altını oyan yaratıcı direniş taktikleridir.

Bu çalışma direniş boyutuna odaklanarak direnişin iktidarla ilişkisini ve toplumdan tümden bir izolasyonun oluşturulduğu F-tiplerinde bunun nasıl deneyimlendiğine odaklanmıştır. Temel olarak sorulan soru gündelik direniş pratiklerinin F-tipi yüksek güvenlikli ve yüksek izolasyonun sağlandığı mekânlarda nasıl deneyimlendiğidir. Bu pratiklerin iktidar ilişkilerini nasıl etkilediği sorusu çok önemli olmakla birlikte iktidarın bu eylemlilikler üzerinden nasıl şekillendiği ve nasıl dönüştüğü kapsam dışındadır.

Tezin direnişle ilgili olan kısmı bu tür mekânlarda direniş nasıl mümkün olur sorusu ile genişletilebilir. Güç uygulayanın bunu nasıl yaptığından ziyade, ezilenlerin böylesine zorlu mekânlarda nasıl direndiği sorunsalıyla uğraşan bu tezde çalışmanın odağına alınan kavram direnişin nasıl tanımlanacağı meselesidir. Literatürde de önemli bir tartışma konusu olan tanımlama meselesi tezin teorik çerçeve bölümünde ele alınmıştır.

Tezin temel meselesi olan Türkiye F-tipi hapishanelerindeki taktikler, de Certeaucu bir perspektiften yorumlanmıştır. “Metis” ve “gündelik hayatın direniş formları” başvurulan başlıca kavramlardır. Bütün bunlar ışığında yeni bir direniş formu ortaya çıkmaktadır. Yenidir çünkü bu direniş formu doğası gereği sürekli yaratım halindedir. Bu pratikler genellikle gizlidir, uygulayanlar arasında sır olarak iktidar tarafında afişe edilinceye kadar kendini korur ve iktidara karşı gelme araçları bulunmayanlar tarafından kullanılır. Bu mahrumiyet fiziksel ya da konumsal olarak kendini gösterebilir. Ayrıca bu direniş formunun en önemli özelliği mekânsal bağlamıdır. Taktikler, stratejilerin tersine iktidarın alanında ortaya çıkar. Ya da daha doğru bir ifadeyle daha önce 201 bahsedilen karşı gelme araçlarına sahip olmayanlar tarafından yaratılır. Bu özgün mekânsal yaratım Hegelci anlamda köleyi yok edemeyen efendinin bir handikabıdır. İktidar, iktidarının ontolojik zeminini oluşturan yaratımın öznelerinin kendi alanı içerisinde zemini sulandırmasına mahkûmdur. Gündelik hayat böyle bir zeminde siyasi tutsakların yaratımlarından örülen yaratıcı bir direniş pratiği sunar.

Bu çalışma daha önce de bahsedildiği gibi F-tipi kapalı hapishanelerini odağına yerleştirmiştir. Bu mekânlarda gündelik hayatın nasıl örüldüğü ve bu pratiklerde ortaya çıkan gündelik direniş formları öncelikle belli aralıklarla ve toplamda 10 ay süren mülakatlarla anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır. Görüşme için F-tipini deneyimlemiş eski siyasi tutsaklara, yakını F-tipinde olan tutsak ailelerine ve F-tipinde kalan tutsakların avukatlarına başvurulmuştur. Bu sorular çerçevesinde toplamda 20 görüşme gerçekleştirilmiş ve bu görüşmelerin toplam uzunluğu 26 saat 18 dakikadır. Her gruba o grup için ayrı hazırlanmış sorular yöneltilmiş ve görüşmelerde sınırlandırılmamış açık uçlu soru tekniği uygulanmıştır. Soruların seyri 3 bölümden oluşmaktadır. İlkinde hapishanenin mimari ve mekânsal tanımlamaları istenmiş, görüşmecilerden F-tipi yaşam alanları krokisinin çizimine yardımcı olmaları istenmiştir. Bu sorular ışığında kuşbakışı F-tipi modeli oluşturulmuş ve bu model analiz kısmında özellikle iletişim ile ilgili bölümde kullanılmıştır. Soruların ikinci bölümünde gündelik hayatla ilgili sorular yöneltilmiş ve gündelik hayat açısından bir izlek oluşturulmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu bölüm, tezin analiz kısmını şekillendiren gündelik pratiklerin kategorizasyonuna katkı sağlamıştır. Özellikle mizahi ve yaratıcı olan pratikler üzerinde durulmuş ve bunların detaylandırılmaları adına sorular yöneltilmiştir. Son bölümde ise tutsakların mücadele anlayışları irdelenmiş, hangi davranış, tutum ve pratiklerin stratejik, hangilerinin taktik olduğu netleştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu bölümde ayrıca sohbetin gidişatıyla tutsaklar arası ilişkiler ve tutsak-gardiyan, tutsak-yönetim ilişkileri hakkında sorular sorulmuştur. Burada da yine strateji ve taktik arasındaki ayrımın netleştirilmesi üzerine sohbetler yönlendirilmiştir.

Görüşmelere ek olarak içeride olan tutsaklarla mektup yoluyla iletişim kurulmuştur. Uzun yıllardır o mekânları deneyimleyen 5 tutsağın gündelik hayatlarını anlatmaları talep edilmiş ve görüşmelerde olduğu gibi meselenin mizahi ve yaratıcı yönüne vurgu

202 yapılıp taktiksel direniş biçimlerine odaklanılmıştır. Tutsaklar aynı zamanda F tiplerinin mekânsal örgütlenmesi hakkında önemli bilgiler vermişlerdir. Eski tutsak, aile ve avukatlara yöneltilen sorulara benzer bir izlek izlenmiş ve sorular kategorilendirilmiştir. Diğer soru şemalarında olduğu gibi üç bölümden oluşan sorular öncelikle F tiplerini mimari ve mekânsal olarak anlamaya odaklanmış, sonra siyasi tutsak kavramı üzerine durulmuş en son ise gündelik hayata dair sorular yöneltilmiştir.

Görüşmeler ve mektuplaşma dışında F tipleri ve hapishanelerle ilgili edebiyat, anı ve sinema eserleri incelenmiştir. Anı bu konulardaki otobiyografik edebi eserler Türkiye hapishanelerinde gündelik yaşamla ilgili tarihin oluşturulmasında yardımcı olmuştur. Bu bölümün büyük bir kısmı, bu eserlerden süzülerek oluşturulmuştur.

Giriş bölümünün ardından tezin beslendiği literatür ele alınmıştır. Özellikle 1980 sonrası dönemde direniş literatürüne tepki olarak doğan gündelik direniş çalışmaları bu tezin temel bağlamı açısından başat konumda olduğundan ayrı ve ayrıntılı olarak incelenmiştir. Diğer bir alt başlık olan hapishane çalışmalarında ise tezin odaklarından biri olan hapishanenin nasıl çalışıldığına bakılmıştır.

Tezin metodunun ele alındığı bu bölümde “suç” ve “ceza” tanımlamalarına değinilmiştir. Bu tecrit modelinin hangi saikle ve devlet tarafından nasıl tanımlandığına bakılmıştır. Özellikle infaz şekillerine ve uygulamalarına odaklanılmıştır.

Direniş literatüründe en çok başvurulan ve meseleye giriş niteliği taşıyan Hollander ve Einwohner’ın makalesi tartışmaya açılmıştır. Klasik anlamda direniş ve buna referans veren önemli teorisyenlerin yüzlerce makalesinin ve kitabının incelendiği bu çalışmada yazarlar direnişin tanımlanması açısından önemli bir tespitte bulundular. İnceledikleri çalışmalar istisnasız direnişle ilgili iki özelliğe gönderme yapmaktadır: direniş aktif bir davranış biçimidir; direniş muhalif bir eylemdir. Bu elbette işbu tez için de geçerlidir. Ancak meseleyi tek başına bu iki özellikle tanımlamak yanlış olacaktır. Böyle bir tanımlamayla her eylemliliği direnme pratiği şeklinde tanımlamak mümkün olacağından tanımlamayı daraltmak gerekmektedir. Nitekim Hollander ve Einwohner da direniş literatüründeki temel ayrımları ve kopmaları incelemiş ve bazı önemli çıkarımlarda bulunmuşlardır. Hollander ve Einwohner 7 farklı direniş türü içeren bir

203 tipoloji oluşturmuşlar ve ana farklılıkların bu türler hakkında farklı görüşlerden meydana geldiğini iddia etmişlerdir. Bu tipolojideki önemli kriterlerden ikisi “tanıma” ve “içerik”tir. Bunlardan ilki “görünürlük” meselesiyle doğrudan bağlantılıdır. Bu tartışma bir eylemin herkesin algılayacağı biçimde görünür olması gerekip gerekmediği hakkındadır. İkinci tartışma konusu kriter ise eylemin direniş olarak nitelendirilebilmesi için eylemin arkasındaki amaç ve niyetin bilinip bilinmemesi durumunu tartışmaktadır.

Literatür bölümünün alt başlıklarından ilkinde daha önce de bahsedildiği gibi özel olarak gündelik direniş çalışmaları ele alınmıştır. Bu konuda dört önemli teorisyenin gündelik hayat ve gündelik direniş düşünceleri merkeze alınmıştır: Mikhail Bakhtin, Asef Bayat, James C. Scott ve Michel de Certeau.

Bu teorisyenlerden ilk olarak ele alacağımız filozof ve sosyal kuramcı Mikhail Bakhtin aslında içlerinde kendini ayrıştırmaktadır. Bunun nedeni kendisinin doğrudan ne gündelik hayat ne de gündelik direniş hakkında çalışması. Genelde gündelik hayatın eleştiri literatüründe ismi anılan bir teorisyen olmasıyla birlikte adı geçen diğer kuramcıların gündelik direniş düşüncelerine önemli katkı sunmaktadır. Özellikle gülme, karnaval ve grotesk kavramları bu literatürü zenginleştirmek adına önemlidir. Gülmenin yaşamsallığı ve halkın (Bakhtin esas olarak idealleştirme açısından Ortaçağ halkından bahseder) edimlerinin yaratıcılığı daha sonra üzerinde duracağımız gündelik direnişin temel özellikleri arasında ele alınmaktadır.

Bakhtin daha baştan bizi uyarır. Onun için, gündelik hayat çelişkilerden, heterojenlikten, yaşamın her alanıyla türlü ilişkilerinden azade düşünülemez. Gündelik hayat tam da bu çelişkiler içerisinde oluşur ve Bakhtin’in sıkça vurgu yaptığı gibi onun zenginliği ve yaratıcılığı buradan gelir. Buradaki diyalektiği, çelişkilerin birliğini anlamadan gündelik hayatın o sonsuz yaşam veren gücünü anlaşılamaz. Peki, buradaki edimlerimiz Bakhtin’e göre direniş olarak ele alınabilir mi? Diğer bir deyişle, halkın gündelik yapıp ettikleri çelişkileriyle beraber iktidara karşı, erke karşı edimler midir? Bakhtin’e göre aslında buradaki sorular yanıtsız kalmaktadır. Çünkü Bakhtin, karnaval ve ortaçağ gülmesinden bahsederken çok daha geniş bir perspektiften, yaşamsal olmaları hatta aynı zamanda ölüme de ait olmaları açısından bakar. Dolayısıyla salt bir direniş değil, aynı zamanda ontolojik bir olguya işaret eder. 204

Gündelik direniş literatüründeki diğer önemli isim Asef Bayat’tır. “Sessiz tecavüz” kavramıyla İran’da 1950lerden itibaren kendini gösteren kentlere doğru olan büyük göç dalgalarının özellikle 1980 sonrası siyasal sonuçlarını anlamaya çalışmıştır. Kendi ifadesiyle odak noktası 1977-1990 İran’ı olan bu çalışma “toplumsal hareketler ile toplumsal değişim arasındaki ilişki hususunda önemli bazı sonuçlara ulaşmada yardımcı olacaktır” (1997:31). Sokak Siyaseti- İran’da Yoksul Halk Hareketleri (1997) adlı kitabında Bayat, gündelik direniş formları kavramsallaştırmasının sahibi James C. Scott’ta da değinir. Mesafeli olduğunu belirttiği bu isim ve başkalarıyla fikir birliği yaptığı önemli bir tespiti de paylaşır. Bayat’a göre sıradan ve sessiz insanın sessiz ama saldırgan eylemlerinde büyük toplumsal dönüşümlere neden olan bir güç vardır. Bu gücü ise saldırganlık noktasına vurgu yaparak “sıradanın sessiz tecavüzü” kavramıyla açıklar. Bayat’ın kelimeleriyle sıradanın sessiz tecavüzü “sıradan insanların zorlukları aşmak ve daha iyi bir yaşam sürdürebilmek için mülk sahipleri ve güçlülerin üzerine sessiz, sabırlı, uzun soluklu ve ısrarlı yürüyüşüdür” (1997:35). Devamında bu eylemliliklerin aktörleri “zaman içinde devlete karşı bir konuma yerleştir[diğini]” söyler. 1980 sonrası sonuçlarını veren bu geniş halk hareketleri “belirgin liderliği, ideolojisi ya da örgüt yapısı olmayan, açık ve uçucu mücadeleler şeklinde dönemsel kolektif eylemleri de içeren, sessiz, münferit ve uzun soluklu hareketlerdir” (1997:35).

Asef Bayat’ın sıradanın sessiz tecavüzü kavramı gündelik hayat ve gündelik direniş literatürü açısından çok önemli bir yerde durmaktadır. Gecekondu bölgelerinde yaşayan yoksul halk, yani Bayat’ın deyimiyle sözde vatandaş, sanılanın aksine gündelik pratikleriyle “baskın grupların ayrıcalıklarına muazzam bir baskıda bulunurlar. Sessiz olmaları onların tam anlamıyla boyun eğmiş ve itaatkâr topluluklar olmaları anlamına gelmez. Bayat, tüm bu baskılara ve sömürüye rağmen neden hala susuyorlar sorusunu anlamlı bulmaz. Çünkü sözde vatandaşın farklı bir direniş anlayışı ve pratiği vardır. Gizlice saldırgan olan bu pratikler gündelik yaşamın içinden tamamen yaşamsal formlarda ortaya çıkar.

Bayat’ın bu halk hareketlerinin saldırganlığına ve kazanımların savunusunun ses getirici olmasına yaptığı vurgu literatür için önemli olmasıyla birlikte bu çalışmada dikkat çekilen pratikler için geçerli değildir. Bu çalışmada, daha önce teorik çerçeve

205 bölümünde de bahsedildiği gibi, gündelik direniş pratikleri saldırgan olarak tanımlanabilecek bir özelliğe sahip değildir. Aynı zamanda odak noktamız olan F -tipi hapishanelerde bu anlamda toplu sayılabilecek bir “hareketten” bahsetmek çok mümkün değildir. Her ne kadar gündelik hayatın içinden doğması, iktidarın altını oyması, yaratıcı pratiklerin varlığıyla taktiklerle benzerlik gösterse de, sıradanın sessiz tecavüzü birlikte hareket edebilen büyük kitlelerin sessizliğinin altında yatan nedenleri ve bunun toplumsal sonuçlarına odaklanır. Hapishaneler böyle bir birlikteliği içerecek yapıdan hem mekânsal hem de siyasal anlamda uzaktır. Mekânsal olarak ayrıştırılmış, tecrit modelinin uygulandığı ve genişlemeye başladığı Türkiye hapishaneleri Bayatçı anlamda ortak bir hareketin genişlemesini engeller. Ayrıca farklı metot ve ideolojilere sahip birçok örgüt ve hareketi barındırmasıyla hapishanelerin böyle bir hareketin tutsakların bilinçli olarak bir araya geldiği bir hareket ortaya çıkarması çok mümkün gözükmemektedir.

Literatürdeki üçüncü önemli kuramcı James C. Scott Weapons of the Weak çalışmasında Malezya’daki Sedaka köyünde ayaklanmaların ve başkaldırıların azlığının nedenlerini inceler. Burada yaptığı 14 aylık antropolojik araştırmada köylülerin gündelik direniş pratiklerine odaklanır. Özellikle “yanlış bilinç” ve “hegemonya” kavramlarına dönük bir tartışma çerçevesinde gündelik pratikleri ele almaya çalışır. Malezya’daki bu çalışmasından süzerek yazdığı Tahakküm ve Direniş Sanatları isimli kitabında ise daha önce “yanlış bilinç” ve “hegemonya” tartışmalarına karşı olarak oluşturduğu düşüncelerini açar. Ona göre ezilenlerin neden direnmediği, isyan etmediği yanlış ve yönlendirici bir sorudur. Çünkü ezilenler direnir ama farklı bir biçimde direnir. Direnmediğini iddia etmek ise tüm bu gündelik hayatın içinde oluşan sonuçları açısından önemli pratikleri yabana atmak olacaktır. Köylüler üzerinde yaptığı bu çalışmada gündelik direniş pratiklerinin sadece köylülerin tekelinde olmadığını aynı zamanda bu dinamikleri barındıran diğer ezilen kitlelerde de var olduğunu söyler (1989:52). “Gündelik hayatın direnme biçimleri” olarak adlandırdığı bu pratikler arasında Scott şu eylem biçimlerini sayar: ağırdan alma, gerçeği gizleme, ayak sürüme, firar, hırsızlık, sahte itaat, sahte ihmalkârlık, kaçakçılık, yasa dışılık bölgeye girme, kundakçılık, iftira, sabotaj, gizli saldırı, belirsiz tehditler (2011:62)

206

Görünür ve klasik direnme biçimlerine alternatif bir görüş de Michel de Certeau’dan gelmiştir. Scott’a benzer bir biçimde de Certeau da benzer bir meseleyi dert etmiştir: Bunca zulme ve baskıya rağmen halk neden ayaklanmamaktadır ve iktidar birçok ideoloji ve kuramın iddia ettiği gibi insanları kımıldatmayacak ölçüde her yere sızmış mıdır? De Certeau bunun hemen cevaplanabilecek bir soru olmadığını ve araştırılması gerektiğini düşünür. Bakılması gereken yer ise gündelik hayattır. De Certeau’nun taktik ve strateji arasında yaptığı ayrım önemlidir. De Certeau’ya göre direnme bir eylem biçimi olarak gerçekleştikleri mekâna göre ikiye ayrılır. Biri, iktidarın ve eyleyenin kendisini iki farklı alanda konumlandırdığı görünür eylem biçimleridir. De Certeau bu direniş biçimlerini strateji olarak adlandırır. Buna karşıt taktikler ise görünür biçimde iktidarın alanından ayrılmadan, sınırsal anlamda ötekinin sınırları dahilinde gerçekleştirilen görünmeyen eylem biçimleridir. Bu taktikler dağınık, sessiz, farkedilmez ve sonuçları biriktirilemez olması yoluyla stratejilerden ayrılır. Tezde temel kavrama aracı olarak kullanılan taktik tüm bu özellikleriyle yeni bir kavrayışa, direnme biçiminin yeni kavranışına işaret eder.

Çalışmanın üçüncü bölümünde tezin genel arka planı sunulmuştur. Öncelikle hapishane mantığından bahsedilmiş ve ideal tip olarak hapishane sistemlerinden bahsedilmiştir. Ardından ise Türkiye hapishanelerinde gündelik hayatın evriminin tarihçesi bir akış halinde verilmeye çalışılmıştır. Hapishane üzerine düşünme ve çalışmanın yöntemsel ve etik açıdan tartışmasına ise bu bölümün son kısmında yer verilmiştir.

Hapishane mantığı bu çalışmada iki ana tez etrafında ele alınmıştır: hapishanenin bir ceza infaz kurumu olarak ortaya çıkışı ve kurum olarak hapishanenin amacı. Hapishanenin doğuşuyla ilgili çok sayıda tez ileri sürülmüştür (Foucault; Rusche & Kirchheimer; Melossi & Pavarani; Ignatieff; Sullivan). Fakat araştırmacılar modern ceza infaz kurumu olan hapishanenin tarihini farklı uygulamaları örnek göstererek farklı tarihlerde başlatmışlardır. Bu, elbette salt bir tarih koyma meselesi değildir. Aynı zamanda kurum olarak hapishanenin işlevini ne şekilde tanımladıkları ve “kapatma” düşüncesini nasıl yorumladıklarına bağlıdır. Hapishanenin amacı ile ilgili ikinci tezde ise klasik “yenilgi mi yoksa başarı mı” tartışması ele alınmıştır. Burada araştırmacılar hapishanenin amacını üzerinden kapatmanın bir infaz biçimi olarak varlığının bugün

207 hala korunuyor olmasını sorunsallaştırırlar (Cohen; Garland; Feeley & Simon). Bahsi geçen ve doğuşunda ortaya konan amaçlar ve hedeflere yüzyıllar geçmesine rağmen hala ulaşılamamış ve dolayısıyla hapishanenin gerekliliği ve varlığını nasıl koruyabildiği bir sorunsal olarak kendini göstermiştir.

Kapatmanın tarihçesi çok eski olsa da modern anlamda bir ceza infaz uygulaması olarak hapsetme çok eski bir uygulama değildir. Avrupa’da 17. yüzyıl Amsterdam cezaevlerine kadar götürülse de Türkiye coğrafyası için 19. yüzyıl modern hapishane mantığının bu topraklarda görülmeye başladığı dönem olmuştur. Bu dönemden itibaren ise ceza infaz sistemindeki hegemonik varlığını artırarak korumuş bir kurum olan hapishaneler Türkiye Hapishaneleri alt başlığında 3 bölümde ele alınmıştır. Yapılan kategorizasyonun temel belirleyeni gündelik hayat pratikleri ve hapishanelerde gündelik hayatta yaşanan kırılmalardır. Kaotik dönem olarak adlandırılan ilk kategori, modern hapishane düşüncesinin ceza infaz sisteminde yer bulmaya başlamasıyla başlayıp 1950lerde tip hapishanelerin açılmasına kadar devam eder. Kaotik olarak adlandırılmasının nedeni yeni olan bu infaz mantığının hem iktidar ve yönetimler tarafından çok planlı ve dikkatli kurgulanmadığı gerçeği hem de tutsaklar tarafından (bu dönemde de önemli ölçüde sol görüşlü aydın çevreler hapishanelerle tanışmıştır) yeni tanışılan böyle bir mekânda gündelik hayatı örgütlemedeki dağınıklıktır. Çatısı, duvarları ve güvenlik önlemleri olmayan yeni yapılmış ya da tam tersi çok eski binalarda barındırma, hapishanelerin şehir merkezlerine yakınlığı nedeniyle tasarlanan tecridin istenilen ölçüde uygulanamaması bu durumun göstergelerinden biridir. Yani iktidar gündelik hayatın düzenlenişine müdahil olmada acemi ve plansız davranmıştır. Buna karşılık tutsaklar da yeni karşılaştıkları mekânlar olması dolayısıyla çok çeşitli tepkiler geliştirmiş ve farklı pratikler ortaya koymuşlardır. İkinci dönem olan “düzen dönemi” bu kaotik hapishane yaşantısının hem yönetim hem de tutsaklar tarafından artık değiştirilmesi gerektiği görüşü sonucu doğmuştur. 1950lerden sonra yeni bir dalgayla sol siyasetten insanlar bu mekânlarla tanışmaya devam etmişlerdir. Öncenin mirasıyla birlikte bu dönemde önemli ölçüde sol siyasete özgü hapishane yaşayış pratiği gelişmiştir. Özellikle 1960 sonrası solun yükselmesiyle beraber hapishaneler büyük oranda sol siyasetten insanla dolmuştur. 1930lardan beri oluşturulmaya çalışılan komün yaşantı biçimi bu dönemde planlı ve programlı bir şekilde yürütülmeye başlanmıştır. 208

Adında da anlaşılabileceği gibi bu dönem hem yönetim hem de tutsaklar açısından hapishanelerin belli kurallar çerçevesinde daha düzenli bir biçimde yaşantılanmaya başladığı zamanlar olmuştur. Devletin tabiriyle bu mekânlarda sol düşüncenin yükseldiği ve artık kontrol edilemeyecek boyutlara ulaştığı için 1980 sonrası bu “düzenli” yaşama alternatif bir hapishane modeli üzerinde durulmaya başlanmıştır. Devletin ilk örneğini Eskişehir Özel Tip Hapishanesi’yle gerçekleştirmeye çalıştığı bu yeni dönem tecrit dönemidir. Büyük direnişler sonucu bu uygulamaya ancak 2000 yılı Aralık ayında “Hayata Dönüş” adı verilen F tiplerine geçiş operasyonuyla geçilmiştir. İçinde bulunduğumuz bu son dönemde doğrudan hedef tahtasına konulan ilk şey düzen döneminin bu düzenli ve planlı yaşantısıdır. Kolektif ve ortaklaşa yaşamın sürdürülmeye çalışıldığı eski tip hapishaneler yerine bu dönemde dönemin kendisiyle eşleştirilmiş olan F-tipi hapishane modeline geçilmiştir. D, L, T tipi hapishaneler de tecrit modelini benimsemesi ve yapılış dönemi nedeniyle bu döneme aittir. Ancak tecridin en yüksek uygulaması olan, sadece 1 ve 3 kişilik “yaşam” hücrelerine sahip olan F tipleri bu dönemin ruhunu daha iyi yansıtmaktadır. Tezin ana sorunsalı tam da böyle yoğun tecridin yaşandığı ve tutsakların gündelik hayatlarına doğrudan müdahalenin bulunduğu bir dönem ve mekânda burada bulunan siyasi tutsakların gündelik hayatlarını nasıl örgütlediği ve bu yaşantılarında de Certeaucu anlamda taktiklerin nasıl işlediği önemli hale geliyor.

Görüşmeler için siyasi ceza avukatlığı yapan avukat bir arkadaşımdan ve eski tutsak arkadaşlarımdan yardım aldım. Bu arkadaşlarımın yardımıyla çeşitli sivil toplum dernekleri, vakıf ve birliklerle iletişime geçtim. Bu kurumlar: TOHAV (Toplum ve Hukuk Araştırmaları Vakfı), TUAD (Tutuklu Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği), İHD (İnsan Hakları Derneği), ÖHD (Özgürlükçü Hukukçular Derneği), HHB (Halkın Hukuk Bürosu), TAYAD (Tutuklu ve Hükümlü Aileleri ile Dayanışma Derneği), CİSST( Ceza İnfaz Sisteminde Sivil Toplum Derneği), TUHAD-FED (Tutuklu Hükümlü Aileleri Hukuk Dayanışma Dernekleri Federasyonu).

Tezde sadece Türkiye Devrimci hareketinden ve Kürt Siyasi hareketinden tutsaklar odak grup olarak ele alınmıştır. Elbette adli mahkûm olarak adlandırılan ya da Hizbullah, Ergenekon gibi davalardan yargılananlar arasından da benzer direniş

209 hikâyeleri, alt etme öyküleri çıkabilir. Hatta bu konuda daha zengin bir alan da olabilir. Hapishanelerdeki mevzuattan içerideki herkes eksiksiz etkilenmekte, bu anlamda hapishane herkese “eşit” davranmaktadır118. Fakat Şaban Öztürk’ün de ifade ettiği gibi “yakın tarihimizde şu ya da bu siyasi ekolün hayatında hapishane belirli dönemlerde yer alırken, solun hayatında her dönem yer almıştır.”

Bugün hapishanelerde bulunan siyasi tutsakların büyük bir çoğunluğu kendilerini yurtsever olarak tanımlayan Kürt hareketi içerisinde yer alan kişilerdir. Görüşme yapılan kişilerin de çoğunluğunu bu davadan yargılanmış ya da bu dava ile alakası olan insanlar oluşturmaktadır. Fakat tez boyunca alıntı yapılan, konuşmalarından aktarılan hiç bir görüşmecinin hangi davadan yargılandığı belirtilmemiştir. Bunun bir nedeni her ne kadar siyasetler arasında ayrımlar olsa da daha çok benzer noktaların ele alınmasıdır. İkinci olarak da böyle bir ayrıma gidilmesi bu çalışmanın kapsamı dışındadır.

Ayrıca tezin arka planını verdiğimiz bu bölümde etik ve bir anlamda teknik bir mesele olan hapishane çalışmanın kendisi tartışılmıştır. İki bölümde yürüttüğümüz tartışmanın ilk kısmı hapishane çalışmanın etik boyutu yani araştırmacının kendini ve çalışmasını konumlandırdığı temeller çerçevesinde ele alınmıştır. İkinci bölümde ise hapishane çalışmanın bir takım teknik zorluklarından ve özellikle Türkiye’deki durumdan bahsedilmiştir.

Öncelikle sosyal bilimlerde tartışılan genel bir mesele, araştırmadaki özne nesne konumlandırması, araştırma nesnesinin nasıl tanımlanması gerektiğidir. Bu çalışmada hapishane literatüründe tartışılan bir kavram olan “aracı araştırmacı” (researcher as facilitator) ve bunun metodolojik sonuçları ele alınmıştır. Ezilenlerin ve baskı altında olanların sesi olmak ve politik bir eylemlilik olarak hapishaneyi konu almak olarak tanımlanabilecek böyle bir araştırmacı pratiğinin önemli olduğunu düşünüyoruz.

118 Bunun bile istisnaları olduğunu söylemek şaşırtıcı olmayacaktır. Örneğin, Alaaddin Çakıcı adlı derin devlet adamı ve mafya lideri hapsedildiği Tekirdağ F -tipi hapishanesinde cezaevi müdürünü ve gardiyanları dövmüş mevzuat gereği ceza alması gerekirken olay kapatılmıştır. Bknz: http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/alaattin-cakici-cezaevinde-mudurun-kaburgasini-kirmis-1489659 210

Tezin analiz kısmı genel bir izlek üzerine örülmüştür. Öncelikle tezde neden F-tipi hapishanelerin ele alındığı ve özellikle gündelik hayatın sorunsallaştırıldığına; düzenlemeler ve mimari açıdan bu kurumların nasıl kurumlar olduğuna odaklanılmıştır. Ayrıca tezin analizinde kullanılan gündelik hayat pratiklerinin nasıl kategorileştiği ve siyasi tutsakların hangi anlamda “zayıf” olarak ele alınabileceği tartışılmıştır. Devamında de Certeau’nun taktik kavramı irdelenmiştir. Analizde kavramsal araç olarak kullanılan taktik dört temel özelliği üzerinden ele alınmıştır. De Certeau’nun taktik’in tanımı için kullandığı bölümlerden alınan kavramsal sete göre bu dört özellik, başkasının mekânına ait olma, görünmezlik, kurnazlık ve yaratıcılıktır. Altı ayrı alt başlıkta incelenen gündelik pratikler bu dört özellik çerçevesinde ele alınmıştır. Bu alt başlıklar, okuma, spor, resim yapma, iletişim, yemek yapma ve içecek hazırlama ve elişidir. Ayrıca iletişim pratiği 4 alt başlık altında incelenmiştir. Bunlar: Mektuplaşma, top atma, rögar ve deliktir Analizde yapılan görüşmelerden ve yazışmalardan doğrudan alıntılar yapılarak bu kavramsal set etrafında anlamlandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Her bölümde görüşmelerden ve yazışmalardan altığımız birkaç örnek üzerinde durulmuştur.

Sonuç olarak, hapishaneler toplumsal ilişkiler ve toplumsal değişimler bağlamında önemli bir yerde durmaktadır. “İstenmeyen” üzerinden “arzu edilenin” yaratılması başta hapishaneler olmak üzere bu ve benzer kurumlarda meydana gelmektedir. Burada geliştirilen ilişkiler iktidar mekanizması tarafından bir prototip olması bakımından ciddiye alınmaktadır. Akbaş’ın ifadesiyle “iktidar dışladığının tehlikeli varlığını her işaret ettiğinde kendi varlığını meşrulaştırmakta ve kendisini mutlak, daim ve tek güç olduğunu hatırlatmak[tadır] vatandaşlarına” (Akbaş, 2011: 35). Fakat analizden de görüleceği gibi bu hatırlatma iktidarın istediği şekilde sonuçlanmamaktadır. Her defasında, her hatırlatma teşebbüsünde meşrulaştırdığı varlığı dönüşmekte ve hatırlattığı şey farklılaşmaktadır. Özellikle okuma örneğinde kendini apaçık gösteren bir dönüştürme pratiği mevcuttur. De Certeau’nun özellikle vurguladığı gibi bir “koyun etkinliği görüntüsü” içinde olan bu pratikler toplum tarafından sadece tüketimin kaba anlamıyla bir dönüşüme uğratılmazlar. Bu tüketimlerde bir üretim mevcuttur. Bahsi geçen örnekte olduğu gibi iktidar hatırlanmak ve meşruiyetini pekiştirmek için ortaya koydukları üzerinden kendisinin 211 altını oyan ve üzerinde durduğu zemini sulandıran pratikler yaratmaktadır. De Certeau’nun taktik adını verdiği bu pratikler analiz kısmının altı ayrı başlığı altında bu bakış açısıyla işlenmiştir.

Tüm bu veriler ışığında eyleyicilerin yani F tiplerinde kalan siyasi tutsakların gündelik hayatta geliştirdikleri taktikler bizlere bu mekânların yaratılmak istenenin tam aksine nasıl direniş mekânları haline geldiğini/gelebildiğini göstermektedir. Bilinçli, planlı ve organize yapılan direniş pratikleri dışında, tutsakların geliştirdiği taktikler Deleuzecü anlamda toplumsal değişimler için yeni bir silah sunmaktadır. Bu, de Certeau’nun taktik kavramına yüklediği iktidarı kendi alanında onun silahlarıyla gizlice alt etme pratikleridir. Yaşam bunlarla doludur ve yaşamla sembolik bir bağı olan hapishaneler de bu pratiklerin belki de en incelerinin deneyimlendiği mekânlardır.

212

APPENDIX-16 Tez Fotokopisi İzin Formu

ENSTİTÜ

Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü

Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü X

Uygulamalı Matematik Enstitüsü

Enformatik Enstitüsü

Deniz Bilimleri Enstitüsü

YAZARIN

Soyadı : Bekiroğlu Adı : Sibel Bölümü : Sosyoloji

TEZİN ADI (İngilizce) : EVERYDAY LIFE AND RESISTANCE PRACTICES IN F-TYPE PRISONS OF TURKEY

TEZİN TÜRÜ : Yüksek Lisans X Doktora

1. Tezimin tamamından kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla fotokopi alınabilir. X

2. Tezimin içindekiler sayfası, özet, indeks sayfalarından ve/veya bir bölümünden kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla fotokopi alınabilir.

3. Tezimden bir (1) yıl süreyle fotokopi alınamaz.

TEZİN KÜTÜPHANEYE TESLİM TARİHİ:

213